


o 0' 



^ -c; 



-v. 



' 




.^^^^ 


^ -^. ^-'*^' ^ 


c^ 


V , - 


. ■«. 


.\ 


% ' 








^%^ 






,0- 


•■-:%'•-'■ 


-■^ -i^^i.. ' 


-f- . 






-^ ,vx^- 






.$ <> 







A' <P, 



-/^€%^^" ^^ ^' ^'-^^^ 



^ -/ly 



n N '-^ 



^.> .,^^ 



»: 






.0 0, 



,0- 













.^7%,^ 









o 0^ 






.0 









^A V 









v>'^. \% 



^:^-L 



.•^ -t, 




I,'". ^r> <).V ^^.rA^^A."^- '^ .<^^ 




vOo. 













■9 



.-> 






■^^ v^ 



a" ■>■ 



-^^ 



"^z,^^" 






-/^ 



"o, » 



>^ 



'•^^. 






cP- .' 



'^-. ^ « V "^ < 






^ >" 













^0°<, *^- 



.^^, l^ 



<,. '"SO 



^s"^' 









\0 



,x^^' 



cP' .^''.'^.^"^^ 






<*'■ 



^'x^ 

.#\. 



:>-yr 












,*'^" '^"-^'" 




.,#■ % = 







.A "O, ' „ . V * ,C^ 




\~ * 









y Q ^ k "*■ \^^ 



.-.^Y^^^ '' ^,., 






\^ 



O- s.^. %.' r,.^' \^> 



^•^ ^0 




.^^ -^^ 






I 



TO 



MR. J. SABINE'S LECTURES 



ON THt: 



46 



INQUIRY " 



TNTO THE SCRIPTURAL IMPORT OF THE WORDS SHEOL, HADES, 
TARTARUS, AND GEHENNA. 

IW TWO i^ARTS. 

1st. A DEFENCE OF THE INQUIRY. 
•2d. HIS PROOFS OF A FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 



BY WALTER BALFOUR* 



HOWE & NORTON, PRINTERS, 14, STATE-STREET, 

1825. 



^A 



r^^ 



f ^ 

I THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS ■^ 

I ! 

|LIBKAKYOF CINCINNATI. I 

\Pampldet i\^o.??^.^£ | 




DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, tO wit : 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the fourteenth day of May, A. D. 1825, ia 

the forty-nin h year of the Independence of the Uni ed S.ates of America, Walter 
Balfouk, of the said Disfrict, ha hdeposi ed in this office the tiJe of a book, the right 
whe:eof he claims as Au.hor, in ;he words following, ;o wit : 
•' A Reply to Mr. J. Sabine's Lectures on the " Inquiry" into the scriptural import. 

of the wo.da Sheol, Hadej, Tariarus, and Gehenna. In two parts. 1st. A Defence 

of he Inquiry. 2d. His Proofs of a Future Re.ribution Considered. By Walter 

Balfour." 

In conformity to 'he act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, " An act for 
the encouragemen of learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to 
the aaihors and pvoprie ors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned ;" and 
al o o an act en i led " an, act supplementary to an act en i-led ' an act for the encour- 
agement of learning, by securing \he copies of mip^^, char s, and books, to the authors 
aid prop-ie or-- of such copies, during the times therein meniioned, and extending the 
benefits thereof lo the arts of deigning, engraving, and etching, historical and olher 
prints.'" JOHN W. DAVIS, 

Clerk of the X)isbict of Massachusetts. « 



BT?37 



t*->- 



ri t 



PEEFACE. 

The pledge given to the public by Mr. Sabine, in 
the public papers to answer the '' Inquiry,'' is generally 
known. The circumstances connected with his obtaining 
a pulpit ^ and the delivery of his Lectures, he has suffi- 
ciently detailed in his preface. One thing he has omitted, 
which deserves to be recorded with the history of this 
affair. On the last evening of their delivery, just be- 
fore the audience was dismissed, Dr, Abraham R. 
Thompson thus addressed them: 

*'Mv Friends — The Rev. Mr. Sabine having now closed his 
lectures, I request the privilege of making a few observations to 
you on the subject of his labours. The Reverend Gentleman, 
of his own free will, offered his services in the public papers, to 
examine and refute Mr. IUlb'ouk's Book, provided he might be 
allowed the use of a pulpit. This religious Societj^, in the gen- 
uine spirit of free inquiry, unanimously offered him their pulpit: 
and you, my friends, have patiently and candidly attended the 
discussion. Some of you have read Mr, Balfour's Book, but 
many have attended these lectures who have not read the book* 
Those of you who have read the book, will bear me witness that 
those who have not, cannot possibly form a correct idea of it 
from Mr. Sabine's lectures, hi justice, therefore, to the cause of 
truth, to the author ot the book, and to those who have not read 
it, I feel constrained tu state explicitly, but briefly, what the pur- 
pose a^id scope of this book are. The object of Mr. Baltbur's 
book, then, from the beginning to the end, is TO SHOW THAT 
HELL WAS NOT A PLACK OF KNDLESS MISERY, AS 
HAS BEEN GENERALLY AND LONG BELIEVED. This 
the Author snows incontrovertibiy, by a consideration of all the 
texts where the words rendered Hell in our common version oc- 
cur. He also spent two sections of the book, in stating a number 
of facts, that the inspired writers did not consider Hell as a place 
of endless misery, nor of any misery in a f^iture state, as has 
been supposed ; that no prophet in the Old Testament, nor yet 
our Saviour, nor his apostles in the New, ever used the word 
Hell to express a state of punishment in the future world. He 
also traced the doctrine of Hell, as a place of endhss misery, to 
heathenism as its origin ; and adduced some quotations from be- 
lievers in the doctriue of hell torments to prove it, &,c. What 



/ ^3 



m 



PREFACE. 



then has Mr, Sabine done in refuting these things? Did he take 
up the texts and show that the author of the book had wrested 
these texts? had perverted them ? Has he taken up any of the 
facts, and shown them to be false ? Or has he even told his au- 
dience, that he believes Hell to be a place of endless misery 1 His 
work was to answer the book, not to m^ke it; but has he not in 
quoting it, altered it, and found constant fault with the author, 
because he did not write the book to suit him ? He quoted but 
little of the book; (and two whole sections, which contain the 
great body of material facts, he has not quoted at all, nor eVen 
alluded to;) and when he made (juotalions, he never, until the last 
lecture, in a single sentence, referred his hearers to the page, 
that they might read and judge for themselves. 

^' As Mr. Sabine has not fullilled his engagement to the public 

in refuting the book, let us advert to what he has attempted to 

do in his discourses. The avowed object of Mr. S.'s discourses 

was to establish a future retribution Its endless duration be does 

not advocate, but stated that he would leave every man to form 

his own opinion as to its duration. His orthodox friends he found 

fault with, for preaching hell torments so much, and said it was 

only the weaker part of them that did so. Had the " Author of 

the Inquiry" only advocated a future retribution, all would have 

been well. This was not the object of the book, nor is any 

thing said in it, either aifirming or denying it. In the book the 

Author repeatedly expresses his readiness to believe the doctrine 

of endless misery, if it can be established from Scripture ; but 

shows that the texts which speak about hell have been perverted 

in support of it. Supposing Mr. S, to have proved beyond all con* 

iradiclion a future retribution^ this is no answer to the book which he 

undertook to refute. But has he proved this? Let everyone who 

has heard him, say, if he has proved either of the two following 

things, which require to be both proved, to establish the doctrine 

o^ ^future retribution. 1st. Has he proved that the soul of man 

at death, goes to Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, or Gehenna, as a place 

or state of punishment ? 2d. Has he proved that such souls are 

actuall}^ in misery there? The mqst plausible proof he advanced 

was, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. But seemingly 

at a loss in what sense to view it, he first considered it a parable, 

then renounced it, and called on the author of the book to prove 

it to be a parable. But the parable says not a word about the 

xoul of the rich man in Hades or Hell. Unless Mr. S. believes 

that the soul has eyes, and ears, and a tongue, &c. in a separate 

state from the body, how can this prove his point? Truly, if we 

are to oecome believers in a state of torment in the new life of in^ 

corruption and immortality, which the glorious gospel of Jesus 

Christ brings to light, as the *' free gift of God, not according to 

our works, but according to his own purpose and grace before 

l\ie foundation of the v/orld," oqr Key. Friend Seibine must fur« 



pheface. o 

nish some better ground for our faith, than the parable of the 
rich man and Lazarus. That Hades at least sometimes means 
the grave, is not denied by Mr. S. ; and all said in the parable 
agrees to the body there, but does not accord with a spirit in a 
future state separate from the body. But it may be said that Mr. 
S. has proved a future retribution from the passages which speak 
of a future judgment. Yes, he attempted to prove :his, but did 
he show from any of those passages that this judgment was in a 
future state ? which was the point to be proved, lo be to his pur- 
pose. All the texts he advanced fell short of this ; and we were 
rather surprized that something more plausible was i\ot advanc- 
ed by him. In short. Mr. S. has not only forgotten tc meet the 
facts and arguments of the book, proving that hell is pot a place 
of endless misery ^ but he has failed, much more than Jve expect- 
ed, to establish his doctrine of future retril>uiion. He pas neither 
refuted the book, nor estabhshed any thing definite in opposi- 
tion to it. 

" Having said thus much about Mr. Sabine's attempts against 
Mr. Balfour's book, we must, in justice to our own feelings, say 
something of his treatment of our friend, the author. Those who 
have not read Mr. B.'S book, and have no personal knowledge 
of him, would certainly form a terrible idea of the mai, from the 
portrait of him in Mr. S.'s lectures. Mr. 15. is theie charged 
with sophistry, insincerity and faleshood ; with denying all pen- 
alty or punishment for sin ; with abetting and upholding all infi- 
delitj^ and all immorality; with first perverting, then denying di- 
vine revelation ; witl) attempting to unhinge and throv down the 
whole moral system, thus to dethrone the moral Rulerof the uni- 
verse. Mr. S. allows Mr. B. the best abilities, but then accuses him 
of the V, orst designs against the best interests both o^ God and 
man, and thus adroitly hangs him up between heaven and earth, 
as fit for neither. But, my friends, remember, a good cause is 
never made better by personal abuse, and a bad on2 is always 
made worse. 

" I would now give notice that Mr. Sabine's Lectures are to be 
printed, and will be reviewed by Mr. Balfour; and also that Mr. 
B. intends immediately to publish a second edition of his book, 
in a cheaper form. Thus both these books will be before the 
public, within the reach of every man who feels disposed to read 
and examine for himself. And you will allow me to say, that 
this subject is one of those things, which belong to our everlast- 
ing peace. What the Rev. Mr. S, or the Rev. Mr. B. may say, 
or what any other man, reverend or irreverend may say, on this 
solemn subject, is of litde consequence either to you or me, who 
are travelling together to another world. But what God, our 
Father in heaven has said in his word, on this subject, is of infi- 
nite importance for all to know. Give me leave, then, to recom- 
mend a course to you which will be equally just to the cause of 



6 



PREFACE. 



troth, to ^i^our own minds, and to the Rov. Opntlemen who ap» 
pear befor^e jou as parties in this question. First take Mr. Bal- 
four's boot in one hand and the Bible in the other, and read se- 
Tiousfj what Mr. B. has written, and compare it critically with 
•the divine testimony. Having done this faithfully, then take Mr, 
Sabine's b(jok, and read and compare it in the same manner. 
Then judg^ for yourselves. 1 ask no more." 

I have ^iven these remarks entire, with the exception 
txf a singir sentence, which, having a personal reference 
to myself^i delicacy required its omission. We insert 
them thki the whole may go down to posterity or obli- 
vion together. Any candid person who has read the 
*' Inquiry,'' and reads Mr. S.'s Lectures, will say that 
the Doctor's remarks are a brief but sufficient defence 
©f it. Why then, it may be said, make this reply ? We 
da this principally for the following reasons. 

1st.. Tpe questions at issue are of deep and universal 
concern. If, therefore, a further discussion of them be 
the mean^ of bringing truth to light, it ought to be done. 
Mr. S. 4^es not defend " endless misery," yet if his doc- 
trine of future retribution be true, it ought to be believed 
hf alL We have, therefore, deemed it proper to con- 
sider whgt he has advanced in proof of it. He thinks, 
that hj p'oving this he answers my book, which is cer- 
tainly a gi'eat mistake. But if he has not proved this, 
the bookjis not answered, even by his own confession. 

2d. We have entered into a further examination of 
the texts in the '' Inquiry," which Mr. S. controverts, 
with others on which he builds his doctrine of future re- 
tribution. The result has not altered but confirmed us in 
our opinicjns. When I wrote my book, this investiga- 
tion was Aot thought of, nor would it likely have ever 
Ireen undertaken, but for Mr. S.'s lectures. We were 
content in showing that hell was not a place of endless 
misery. When Mr. S. abandoned its defence, to advo- 
cate /tt/^i^re retribution^ we considered it high time to re- 
consider the subject, and explore the whole ground. If 
a first rate orthodox man deemed it prudent thus to shift 
Lis ground, it was proper to examine, if his new was any 
better than his old. The following pages contain a brief 
statement of what has occurred to us on the subject. 



PREFACE. 



It will be perceived by the reader, that many of Mr. 
S.'s texts, quoted in proof of his future retribution^ 
have been but slightly considered. The reasons for thi^ 
are obvious. He did not show us how they applied to 
his subject. They in fact did not apply; for what have 
texts proving a temporal punishment to do in proving^ 
punishment in a future state? Besides, to have filkd mf 
pages with remarks at length on them, would have in- 
creased my book beyond all due bounds, and of little 
profit to the reader. But neither Mr. S. nor any onq 
else can complain, that we have passed over any of the 
texts, which form the foundation of his views as given 
us in his lectures. These we have considered at as much 
length as our limited room would permit. To increase 
our room we have printed without the leads, but have 
been obliged to omit nearly a third part of what we had 
Written in reply. There are several things in Mr. S.'s 
lectures, we have thought proper not to answer. For 
example, we have not attempted to reply to all his un- 
qualified assertions. To have done this, would have re- 
qired a volume. We have, in some instances, referred 
our readers to his pages, where they may be seen, and 
in a few instances have confronted them with the truth. 
All the answer assertions deserve, is merely to assert 
the contrary; but this would have been to trifle with our 
readers, and fill our pages to no profit. Nor have we 
attempted to correct all his misrepresentations, mutilated 
statements, and exaggerations of the sentiments advanc-' 
ed in the ' Inquiry.' Some of these we were obliged 
to notice, but many of them we have passed over with- 
out either censure or remark. But to Mr. S.'s harsh^ 
and even abusive language, we have made no reply. 
We have been pained to notice so much of this through- 
out his lectures, and some of it even uttered against his 
own orthodox friends. We think, upon mature reflection. 
Mr. S. must regret this; for we cannot let ourselves be- 
lieve, that he will approve it in any case, much less in 
defence of what he beheves the truth of God. It is not 
required in any to speak wickedly for him, nor can the 
wrath of man ever work his righteousness. 

We presume that Mr. S. has done his best to answer 
the ' Inquiry,' but has entirely failed in meeting the 



8 



PREFACE 



facts and arguments contained in it. Should any one 
else think fit to attempt this, or to reply to the following 
pages, it is hoped they will not do as he has done, alter, 
mutilate and misrepresent my sentiments. Let the ar- 
gument and evidence of both be fairly and honourably 
met. If my* views are proved unscriptural, I pledge 
myself to renounce them; but if not, who would ask me 
to change them? I have sought after truth, and embrac- 
ed it as evidence has appeared. No man can alter my 
present opinions; but evidence of their falsehood will 
change them at any time. If they are false, no man can 
more sincerely wish to see their falsehood exposed than 
I do; and if this can be done, no doubt but it will be 
done. 

In our reply to Mr. S. we have endeavoured to keep 
constantly in view the great points at issue. We have 
carefully attended to his meaning, stated his sentiments 
honestly, and fairly; and how fairly and fully we have 
met them we now leave to the judgment of our readers. 
We presume that he will not say that we have either 
yAisunderstood him or misrepresented him. 



PART I. 

M, 3>SF£Zf CS OF THE IlfQUZRY. 



What is truth, concerning the questions at issue be- 
tween Mr. Sabine and myself, ought to be the entire 
object of inquiry, both of us and of our readers. Every 
thing, which would divert the mind from this, ought to 
be studiously avoided. All hard words, personal reflec- 
tions, or sectarian feelings, ought to be laid aside, for 
what have they to do in settling such questions. We 
shall endeavour to avoid them. 

The first question then ought to be. What is the object, 
scope, and matter of the book, which Mr. Sabine under- 
took to refute ? No person could learn any of these from 
his discourses, but would rather conclude from his state- 
ments, that it was a mere book of negatives, without ar- 
gument or arrangement ; which set out to prove one thing, 
but all said happened to prove another. If this was true 
why was Mr. S. at the trouble to make any reply to it 1 

The object and scope of my book throughout, was to 
show, that Hell, so long considered by the orthodox, as 
a place of endless misery, is a doctrine not taught in the 
Bible. Let it be particularly noticed here, that the or- 
thodox doctrine was, and yet is, not that Hell is a place 
x)f temporary misery, but that it is endless in its dura- 
tion. This is the universally received doctrine, by all 
true orthodox people, as all of them will readily acknowl- 
edge. Mr. Sabine himself will not deny it. Was this 
book then made up of bold barefaced assertions that Hell 
was not a place of endless misery 9 Surely such a book 
as this could never lead Mr. S. to say concerning it, page 
4, ^' A reply was demanded, and many a serious Chris- 
tian asked, will no man meet this uncircumcised Philis- 
tine, who hath defied the armies of the living God ?'? Nor 
could a book filled with mere childish assertions, produce 
the effect which Mr. S. confesses it had on his own mind, 
as stated by him page 12 ; " When I began to write on 
2 



10 K DEFENCE ' 

this controversy, I had read the '' Inquiry" through witfe 
thought and care ; many sections and passages I had con- 
sidered again and again ; the result was, that I was al- 
most persuaded Mr. B. had the truth in a great measure 
on his side, in regard to the real and doctrinal application 
of Sheol and Hades." A book which was read Vv^ith 
care, and sections and passages considered again and 
^gain, to produce such a result in his mind, with all his 
former knowledge and prejudices, could not be altogether 
a book of '' negatives and evasions, critical perplexities 
and feeble consequences." See p. 107^ &c. I would 
merely observe here, that I defied no man, but only stat- 
ed what occured to me on this subject for candid consider- 
ation. I am sorry the armies of the living God did not 
find some one, to make a more able, and candid reply. 

What kind of matter then did this book contain ? 
Those who have read it, need not be informed. They 
will no doubt excuse me for giving here a brief statement 
of its contents. The book then is divided into two chap- 
ters. Sect. 1st of C)iap. Ist^ contains a consideration of 
all the passages in the Old Testament, where the word 
Sheol x)ccurs, and is rendered pit, grave, and hell in the 
common version. Here it is shown, that sheol or hell, 
was not used by the Old Testament writers to express a 
place of endless misery. Quotations from Dr. Campbell, 
and others, are made in confirmation of this. Besides a 
number of facts are stated in proof, that no such sense 
was attached to this word by them. In Sect. 2d, ail the 
passages are cotisidered in which Hades occurs, which is 
rendered grave and hell in the common version. It is 
there shown, that Hades is the corresponding word in the 
New Testament to Sheol of the Old, and that it was not 
used by Christ nor his apostles to express a place of end- 
less misery. A number of facts are also stated in proof 
of this, and quotations are made from Dr. Campbell, 
Whitby, 8fhd others, in confirmation of the sentiments ad- 
vanced. In Sect. 3d, the word Tartarus, 2 Pet. ii, 4, 
is considered^ which is also rendered Hell in the common 
version. A quotation is here made from Dr. Campbell, 
showing, that the Jews derived their notions of punish- 
ment in Hadesy Tartarus, or Hell, from the heathen. 
Another quotation is made from M. Le Clerc to show. 



OF THE INQUIRY. 11 

what uontemptable opinions the wisest heathens had 6t 
their own hell. Chap. 2d contains seven sections. In 
section 1st remarks are made on Dr. Campbell's views 
of Gehenna ; and it is there shown, that Gehenhia in the 
Old Testament, was not, as he asserts, made an emblem 
of eternal misery to the wicked, but of temporal punish- 
ment to the Jewish nation. Sections 2d and 4th are 
wholly employed in stating facts, proving that Gehenna 
was not used by our Lord, nor any New Testament wri- 
ter, to express a place of endkss misery. Section 3d is 
taken up in a consideration of all the passages in the 
New Testament^ where Gehenna occurs. Here, the 
sense our Lord attached to this word, is determined by 
an appeal to the context of Matt, xxiii, 33, and shown^ 
that he did not use it to express a place of endless mise- 
ry, but the temporal miseries which came during that 
generation on the Jews. It is also shown, that all the 
other texts where this word occurs, are in agreement with 
this view of the subject. In Sect. 5, the argument drawn 
from the Apocrypha and Targums is considered. Here 
it is shown, that the Apocrypha says nothing about Ge- 
henna, and that Whitby, Parkhurst and others, were 
mistaken, in referring to these writers for the common 
sense attached to the word Gehenna, It is also shown, 
that all that is said about Gehenna in the Targums> is 
found in those of least merit, and where it is allbwed the 
writers use their own fancies and fictions as glosses on the 
texts. Besides, the texts on which they speak of Ge- 
henna, do not warrant the false glosses about Gehenna 
given by those writers. Section 6th, is occupied in an- 
swering objections ; arid the 7th in concluding remarks. 
Such is a brief outline of the book, which Mr. Sabine 
undertook to refute, the correctness of which we are 
confident he will not dispute. The question comes 
then fairly before us. What ought Mr. 8. to have done 
to answer this book ? The answer is, He oiight to prove 
that hell is a place of endless misery to the wicked. 
But has Mr. S. done this 7 No ; he has not even at- 
tempted it. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the 
streets of Askelon, for the daughters of the uncircUmcised 
will triumph, that he does not pretend to advocate that 
hell is a place of endless misery. As to hell bmng 9 



12 A DEFENCE 

place^ he denies it ; and as to the endless duration of its 
punishment, he abandons its defence. What the armies 
of the Hving God will think and say of this, it is not for 
me to say. But we will say, that what he remarks con- 
cerning the departure of certain men in this region from 
orthodox principles, comes with a bad grace from him, 
when he strikes the orthodox flag of endless misery to 
half-mast in his first onset with such an uncircumcised 
Philistine. They may well say, ^' Physician heal thy- 
self. Consider from whence thou art fallen, and repent 
and do thy first works.'' 

Mr. S. in various places, represents my book as a book 
of negatives. Notwithstanding all this, it is very evident 
from page 72, that it nearly converted him to my faith 
about the doctrinal " application of Sheol and Hades. '* 
But a new discovery prevented his complete conversion. 
I ought at leat to have the credit of being the occasion 
of this discovery, and he might have set it before us, to 
let all see how it showed to him the sandy foundation on 
which my " whole fabric is reared.'' But he keeps this 
a secret to himself, and merely tells us, page 73, " Sheol, 
I perceive, is very seldom used in direct application to 
the grave as the place of the dead, and almost always in 
relation to the future world, the state and condition of 
departed spirits. And in this state too, I observe, that 
God particularly shows his indignation to sinners." If 
Mr. S. perceived all this from his new discovery, why 
could he not impart it to others, and have entered into 
^ consideration of all the texts in which Sheol occurs, 
and showed that this was indeed their meaning. This 
would have settled the whole business at a single stroke,. 
But no, he keeps all his new light to himself, and thinks 
we ought to be perfectly contented with his assertions on 
the subject. But it is very evident, from page 10, that 
he admits for substance all that I said about Sheol, Ha- 
des, Tartarus and Gehenna. He says, '' It shall be ad- 
mitted that Sheol in the Old Testament has no reference 
to a place pr state of misery ; and that Hades, Tartarus 
and Gehenna in the New, are equally inapplicable to a 
future state of misery."' This part, however, was likely 
^written while Mr. S. maintained '' a candid and inquir- 
ing mmd," See p. 72, 73. It is a pity he did notmainr 



OF THE INQUIRY. 18 

tain this in writing all his discourses. It is true he retains 
the right of disputing " at least some portion*' of the 
above statement afterward, and we shall see afterward 
what it is. As to Tartarus, which occurs only in 2 Pet. 
ii, 4, we shall quote all that Mr. S. says concerning it. 
He says, p. 55, " As to Tartarus, the Hell of paganism, 
of which Mr. B. speaks, it exhibits not a principle of 
retributive justice as revealed in the Scriptures : Tarta- 
rus was not a place or state of punishment for transgres- 
sors ; it was rather a political limbo, a place of fabled 
confinement for unfortunate gods and kings, without re- 
gard to their moral or general character, but by no means 
a state of retributive* punishment upon the principles of 
moral justice. At this Hell unbelievers laugh, and the 
pagans laughed at it themselves.'' He adds, p. 109, 
'' Tartarus remains yet to be considered. It occurs but 
once in the Scriptures ; it is in 2 Peter ii, 4, and in the 
common version translated Hell. The phrase originally 
is Greek ; it is derived from a word or words expressive 
of horror and trouble of mind, as tarassOy which signifies 
a turbid, distressed state. Tartarus was the name the 
poets gave to the future state of punishment ; it was gen- 
erally known in that character, hence Peter adopts it as 
descriptive of the state of punishment to w^hich the trans- 
gressing angels fell upon their condemnation. Why 
Peter chose this term we cannot say, any more than we 
can why our Lord adopted such words as mammon, Bo- 
anerges, Paradise. All we can say, Peter was divinely 
inspired, and so the adoption of the phrase is of divine 
authority : Mr. B. says nothing against this term, that 
needs a reply, and therefore we need not detain you on 
a question not disputed." 

It is very plain from these statements, that Mr. S. dis- 
cards Tartarus as a place of retributive punishment, upon 
the principles of moral justice. But he also avers, that 
it '' was not a place or state of punishment for transgres- 
sors." What then was it ? He says, '' It was rather a 
political limbo, a place of fabled confinement for unfor- 
tunate gods and kings, without regard to their moral or 
general character." This confirms all we have said in 
Chap. 1, Sect. 3, of the Inquiry, to which we refer the 
reader. There^ we see Dr. Campbell calls Tartarus the 



14 A DEFENCE 

prison of Hades ; and here, Mr. S. calls it a political 
limbo or prison ^ a place of fabled confinement for imfor- 
tiinate gods and kings. Their " horror and trouble of 
mind,'' and '^ turbid distressed state," were no doubt all 
a fable also. But Mr. S. further informs us, that 
^' Teirtarus was the name the poets gave to the future 
state of punishment ; it was generally known in that 
character ; hence Peter adopts it as descriptive of the 
state of punishment to which the transgressing angels fell 
upon their condemnation. '^ What ! Did the transgress- 
ing angels fall to a political limbo, a place of fabled con- 
finement for unfortunate gods and kings ? What ! Did 
Peter, by using this term, change a political limbo, a 
place that was only a mere fable, into a real place of 
punisbjnent for the angels w^ho sinned ? And was it also 
changed into a state or place of retributive punishment 
upon the principles of moral justice to them 1 for he says 
it was not such a place to unfortunate gods and kings* 
It was "not a place or state of punishment for transgres- 
sors." But the the angels, according to the orthodox 
faith, fell long before the heathen made Tartarus a polit- 
ical limbo for unfortunate gods and kings. Besides, does 
not Mr. S. with great confidence affirm, p. 71, '' That 
what the heathen knew of a future state, they received 
directly, or indirectly, from divine revelation." Will Mr» 
S. be kind enough to give us chapter and verse from 
whence they could learn that Tartarus was a political 
limbo, a place of fabled confinement for unfortunate gods 
and kings ? 

As to the word Gehenna, it, as well as Sheal, Hades 
and Tartarus, are all " equally inapplicable to a future 
state of misery," as admitted by Mr. S. himself. Ac- 
cordingly he does not so much as attempt to refute my 
explanations of Matthew xxiii, 33, and other passages 
where the term Gehenna is used. No, he passes them 
over in silence, neither explaining them himself or show- 
ing my interpretations false. We shall see, that in only 
one or two of the passages where this term is used does 
he controvert what I have written. 

I devoted two whole sections of the " Inquiry" to a 
$tatem.ent of facts, showing that Gehenna does not mean 
'ts the orthodox doctrine teaches, '' a place of endless 



OP THE IJTQUIRY. 15 

misery for the wicked.'' Mr. Sabine was told, pages 
328, 329, of the Inquiry, that my book could never he 
answered, nor I convinced that Hell was a place of end- 
less misery, until those facts were farely removed out of 
the way. But he very prudently leaves the facts just as 
he found them, undisturbed, yea without any notice of 
them. Mr. S. pages 10, 11, 12, briefly refers to some 
of these facts, but he does not attempt to show a single 
one of them to be false. But until he shows those facts 
false, and my interpretations of the texts erroneous, it is 
idle to say the book is answered. Mr. S. ought to have 
done both these, but he has not attempted either. Wheth- 
er this arises from incapacity in Mr. S. or the impossible 
nature of the case, let others say, but I am sure it was 
not from want of inclination. I w^ill do him the credit 
to add, that though his discourses abound in assertions, 
he does not venture to assert, that he could either prove 
the facts false or the interpretations unscriptural. He 
had foresight enough to perceive, that if he had asserted, 
I can do this, the next question would be, why then did 
you not do it ? But had he not foresight enough to per-* 
ceive, that by leaving these things undone, it would be 
concluded, he is^ unable to do them. 

Mr. S. does not seem pleased in some parts of his dis- 
courses, that I have made quotations from Campbell, 
Whitby, Chapman, and others, in favour of my views of 
Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna. But what has 
he done to show, that these quotations were not to the 
purpose for which I made them ? He is aware, that 
they are all taken from men who belonged to the armies 
of the living God, and not one of them from any univer- 
salist writer. Nor were they made to give currency to 
my views by the sound of great names, but on account 
of evidence they adduced in favour of them. It was not 
who said this^ but what teas said we were concerned 
about in making such quotations. We merely availed 
ourselves of the proofs and concessions of such writers, 
to corroborate the opinions we advanced. But does he 
attempt to show, that I perverted the meaning of these 
writers, or, that the quotations were irrelevant to my sub- 
ject ? No, Mr. S. does not insinuate any such thing. 
Well we feel inclined to put a few question^ to him about 



16 A DEFENCi: 

tliis. We would then respectfully ask him, if he had 
found in any author, either orthodox or otherwise, evi- 
dence to prove my facts false, and my interpretations of 
the texts erroneous, would he not have quoted it ? We 
must doubt this until he quotes such an author. Again, 
we ask, had any thing occured to himself, which could 
have shown the facts false or the interpretations unscrip- 
tural, w^ould he not have produced it against a book he 
pledged himself to refute ? If it did occur, why did he 
not state it ? If it did not, why was he not candid enough 
to confess the difficulty of the case ? Once more we 
would ask, supposing he had proved the facts false and 
the interpretations erroneous, what difference could it 
make, w^hether the evidence he adduced was borrowed or 
original ? For my part, if he will only produce such evi- 
dence, I care not a straw how, nor where he gets it, 
whether from himself. Dr. Campbell, or any other man. 
The authors quoted were respectable, and whoever con- 
suits them will find, that they were not so much in the 
habit of making bold assertions as our friend Mr. S. nor 
so indifferent as he is to evidence which other writers 
produced who preceded them. 

But seeing Mr. S. has not answered my book, it may 
be asked, w^hat then has he done ? It does not appear 
that it ever entered into his calculations to answer it, but 
to attempt to establish a future retribution. By doing 
this he fancied he should accomplish SHch a work. But 
it was only a mere fancy, for if he had, it would not in 
the slightest degree affect my book. My book was writ- 
ten to show, not that there w^as no future retribution, but 
that endless misery in Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, 
or Hell, was not true, as orthodox people beheve. If it 
turned out in the course of my investigations that none of 
these words even taught a place of temporary misery in a 
future state, the fault was not mine. This was not the. 
object of the book to show, but a mere secondary ob- 
ject, which fell out in the course of my research. It 
was not sought after, but it obtruded itself upon me. 
If he had read my book with any attention he could 
not avoid seeing this, yet he labours to make his read- 
ers believe, that this secondary and accidental object^ 
was my only object. But did he ever read the follow- 



OF THE INQUIRY. 



17 



ing among other passages I might quote from the 
''Inquiry." Thus it is said, p. 46, " But letting such 
persons have this parahle all their own way, on their own 
principles, it does not prove endless misery. All that 
they can possibly draw from it is, that Hades is an inter- 
mediate place of punishment between death and the res- 
urrection ; and that then> according to their own account, 
this place is to be destroyed. Supposing then that I 
should grant ail they desire, they must allow, that this 
parable does not say a word about a place of endless 
misery. I might here close my remarks on this parable,, 
as it has no bearing on the subject of our investigation." 
Mr. S. w^e think may blush when he reads this. Be- 
sides, did I not repeatedly state, that though endless mis- 
ery w^as not taught in any of the texts w^hich speak about 
hell, that I w^as ready to believe even it, or a temporary 
future punishment, if either could be established from 
other parts of the Bible. But his eyes, and his ears, 
w^ere closed to all this, and much more stated in my book. 
But it may be asked, seeing it was not Mr. Sabine's ob- 
ject to answer the Inquiry, nor to prove the doctrine of 
endless misery, but only a future retribution, w^hat course 
does he pursue ? How does he proceed with the book 1 
And how does he prove his own doctrine ? It shall now 
be our work to show this by following him throughout 
his six discourses. 

LECTURE I. 

Mr. Sabine gives us tw^o pages of Introduction with 
which I have no particular concern. He then states 
that Revelation is to decide the questions at issue. 
Agreed. But does he abide by this ? No, far from 
it, for, 

1st, On the very same page he proceed^ to alter my 
book to suit his own convenience, and makes it s^ynofu- 
tnre punishment. He drops altogether what was the 
primary object of my book, to show that Hell w^as not a 
place of endless misery, for this he does not mean to ad- 
vocate. But he takes up the accidental object, that Hell 
was not even a place of temporary punishriient, and is de- 
termined to make the book speak tkk whether it will or 
3 



18 A DEFENCE 

no. He makes a man of straw, no future punishme^it, 
and then proceeds to fight with him. To make this man^ 
he begins by telling us about three classes of Universal- 
ists. He then quotes some detached sentences from my 
book to show, that I diifer from them all. See pp. 7^ 8. 
But why did he trouble himself about what is orthodoxy, 
or heterodoxy among Universalists or any other sect^ but 
at once proceed to refute my book from divine revelation, 
our- agreed standard. But, instead of this he proceeds very 
deliberately to alter it. But this is only the beginning of 
his alterations, for in pages 10, 11, 12, of the same dis- 
course, yea, throughout his six discourses, it seems to be 
a chief part of his work to make such alterations. But 
I always understood that he had pledged himself to an- 
swer the lx>ok and not to make it or alter it. Had he 
been a true hearted orthodox man, he would have defend- 
ed the doctrine of endless misery to the last extremity, 
and saved himself the trouble of such mutilations and al- 
terations. But he seems ashamed of it, and refuses to 
become counsel in its behalf He says, that it would be 
attempting to prove too much. How much more than 
enough, it would be to prove this, he no where informs 
us, but it is too much for him to prove, that Hell is a 
place of endless misery for the wicked The very thing 
which ought to be proved, to answer my book, is that 
which he refuses to do, yea, says it would be proving too 
much if he did prove it. But Mr. S. must have a Hell 
in a future state, though he does not advocate its endless 
duration. To give up Hell altogether as a place of fu- 
ture punishment, would be bad policy. People would 
be shocked at the imposition which had been practised 
on them, and on the world for ages by most preachers. 
Mr. S. has pi-eached, and we presume now preaches hell 
torments. If he does, why then does he not defend this 
doctrine ? But he goes on to tell his readers, that my 
views differ from all the three classes of Universalists he 
had mentioned, p. 7, yea, even from that " which includes 
the immediate salvation of all." And how does it dif- 
fer 7 Why, because I say '' nothing about salvation or 
future happiness.'' Indeed! But was not Mr. S. nod- 
ding when he read pp. 41, 42, 63, 259, &lc, of the '' In- 
quiry," or did he not sometimes turn two or three leaves 



or THE INQUIRY. 19 

at a time ? or perhaps he felt disposed to misrepresent a 
book which he could not fairly answer. If Mr. S. by- 
salvation means, being SRved from endless hell torments, 
let him undei'stand, that I did, and now do deny, that 
Jesus Christ is ever said to save any from such a punish- 
ment. Can he prove from his Bible that such a thing is 
once asserted there 1 I now go -further, and call upon 
him to prove, if he can, that Jesus Christ is ever said to 
save any from temporary hell torments in a future state. 
Let Mr, S. gird himself to his task, and if he proves this 
I will feel under obligations of gratitude to him. But 
proving this, it would be no answer to the Inquiry, the 
object of which w^as to show, that hell w^as not a place 
of endless misery. We grant further to Mr. S. that if 
he proves satisfactorily temporary hell torments in a fu- 
ture state, that he will nearly convert us to the belief of 
endless hell torments. Granting him to prove this, he 
might say, I have got the wicked all into hell on the 
authority of the Bible, I leave you to get them as fairly 
out of it by the same authority. But on p. 9, Mr. S. 
says, Mr. B.'s '' system differs from that which include^ 
the immediate salvation of all." But he seems to have 
forgotten this by the time he reaches p. 34, for he says 
there, " Mr. B.'s views therefore introduce all men into 
heaven at death, though they expire in the very act of 
murder." As these statements cannot both be true, it 
remains for him to tell us which of them he considers 
true. 

In pp. 10, 11, 12, Mr. S. quotes my book and makes 
it teach no future punishment to any man under heaven. 
As I could not, or did not express myself in terms suita- 
ble to his doctrine of future retribution, he is very kind 
in teaching me what I ought to have said. According- 
ly he first institutes an inquiry on the pbrases used by me 
'^ endless misery," and " eternal punishment ;" and de- 
nies that my Inquiry is on the subject of endless misery. 
It is on future misery^ says Mr. S. and tells me, that I 
should always *' say temporal punishment, when 1 mean 
those calamities, which come on men in this present life, 
and future punishment, when I mean the miseries of a 
future life." He then adds, p. 12, "This distinction is 
not a quibble, it is a logical and important one, because 



20 A DEFEIS'CE 

it divides the parties in this discussion into two, which 
otherwise would be three : it makes temporal punishment 
dne party, and future limited with future eternal, the 
other. Future is a common term equally applicable to 
those who hold a limited, as to those who hold an eter- 
nal punishment." On this we beg leave to remark,- 

1st, How this distinction is a logical one, and not a 
quibble, because it happens to divide the parties into two, 
which otherwise would be three, is above all my logical 
powers to fathom. We thought that Mr. S. only a page 
or two above had divided the parties into three himself, 
but now he is for only having two.- But here he is for 
making future limited and future eternal join hands 
and become one flesh. Having abandoned the defence 
of endless misery himself, he is willing to make a common 
cause of it with those who believe in future limited pun- 
ishment. 

2d. But why need Mr. S. have any more than one 
party in this case, if this matter is to turn on the word 
future. The word /it if tire is a common term, and equal- 
ly applies to those who believe in a temporal punishment 
for sin, as those who believe in a limited or eternal pun- 
ishment in a future state. We never understood that 
men were punished for their sins before, but always af- 
ter they committed them. What then becomes of this 
fine logical distinction about the \\ord future. And what 
becomes of Mr. S.'s assertion on page 13, where he says 
of me, '' He covenants with us, when he takes his ground, 
to consider future not eternal punishment as the subject 
of opposition." I should be glad to see where I have 
entered into any such covenant. Mr. S. made the cove- 
nant himself, by altering my book, but I have not oivned 
it, by bow, subscription, nor otherwise. What alarms 
Mr. S. is this, " If I resist him upon future limited pun- 
ishment," he says I "will flee to future eternal, and so 
vice versa." Strange ! I flee to future eternal if I am 
resisted on future limited punishment ! then Satan must 
be divided against himself. Let Mr. S. lay all his fears 
to rest, for I will hold on to my book. I will hold that 
the old orthodox doctrine, that Hell is a place of endless 
misery, is not a Bible doctrine. Let Mr. S. defend 
this if he can, or honestly tell us, that Hell is given up 



OF THE INQUIRY. 21 

by the orthodox as a place of endless misery ; or that 
Hell is altogether abandoned as a place of misery, and 
that future punishment, endless or temporary, is now to 
be defended from other parts of the Bible. If Mr. S. is 
ashamed of orthodoxy let him publicly avow it. If he 
did not mean to defend this, why intrude his services on 
the public, and volunteer himself as the champion of the 
armies of the living God ? Will he receive the thanks 
of true orthodox people for thus betraying their cause? 

But to return to the discourses : Mr. S. proceeds to 
a second remark, p. 13, relative to '' the seemingly in- 
definite use of Hell as a term expressing the idea of pun- 
ishment or misery ! ! What ! the word Hell a seeming- 
ly indefinite term to express the idea of misery ? With 
whom is it so ? Not with me ; for on Matt, xxiii, 33, I 
have definitely settled the sense in which our Lord used 
this word by an appeal to the context, which Mr. S. 
seems afraid to look in the face. Is it so with the ortho- 
dox ? Far from it ; for their books, and their sermons, 
and their conversation declare, that Hell is not only a 
place of misery, but of endless misery. Can Mr. S. de- 
ny this ? Has the word Hell then become seemingly in- 
definite with him ? We should think not very indefinite, 
for where I use the words hell and hell torments, eter- 
nal and endless misery, he is for substituting future pun- 
ishment, future misery, future retribution, &c. see p. 
14, and other places in the discourses. 

The final conclusion to which Mr, S. comes about my 
book is thus expressed in Italic type, " That the Scrip- 
tures neither assert^ nor teach, nor admit the doctrine 
of future punishment.''^ But the legs of the lame are 
never equal, for Mr. S. quoting from the Christian Re- 
pository, says, that I] have maintained a studied silence 
on this subject. But the very best of men sometimes 
contradict therqselves. 

Mr. S. having put the result of his labour in altering 
my book in Italic type, says, " It will be our next buis- 
ness to inquire what this position includes, and what con-^ 
sequences are necessarily and inevitably involved.'' The 
seven remaining pages of his first discourse are spent in 
drawing seven bugbear concequences from his mutilated 
and distorted accouHt of my book. In the paragraph 



22 A DEFENCE 

preceding them Mr. S. says, " If they are found to be 
just, no bare denial, on the part of Mr. B. shall be ad- 
mitted as counter evidence ; lei him, if he can, disprove 
or invalidate this reasoning by superior argumentation, 
but a mere denial of the concequences will be rejected." 
Hoping our readers will turn to the discourses and read 
Mr. S.'s seven consequences and his reasoning on them, 
we proceed to a few remarks. 

1st. Speaking of these consequences Mr. S. says, '' If 
they are found to be just, no bare deniel will be accept- 
ed as counter evidence from me.'' Let the question be 
asked, Found just by whom ? Surely not by me, for he. 
never could suppose I could find them just. Does he 
mean by himself ? This we have some doubt about, for 
he says, '' it is no uncommon thing in dispute, for the ar- 
guist to draw conclusions and consequences which the op- 
posite party will deny." Mr. S. seems to have been 
conscious, that drawing consequences in this way was 
delicate, if not dishonourable ground, and hence he intro- 
duces it with an apology. But once more let me ask, if 
these consequences are found just, by whom ? Does Mr. 
S. mean, found just by our readers ? Certainly ; for he 
could not mean himself as he is a party concerned^* 
Well, we are willing to submit the case to them, or if he 
prefers it, we will submit it to. referees, and two out of 
three shall be of his own choosing. If they shall in con- 
science say, that these seven inferences are legitimate 
fair consequences from my book, I pledge myself to sub- 
mit to their decision, and shall relinquish all future pre- 
tensions, to judging of whfvt are fair inferences from 
any premises. 

But, 2d, As Mr. S. will admit of no bai^e denial from 
me of such consequences, I hope he will admit me, for 
the sake of argtiment, to plead guilty to them. We 
shall then state the case in its very worst point of light. 
Supposing then, that I deny, that ^' in the constitution of 
divine government there is any future retribution," and 
that I assert', that *' the Scriptures dp not teach or assert 
any divine law ;" that they " do not assert the character 
of divine justice," nor ^'reveal to man any way of sal- 
vation." Further, that I do not admit a future retribu- 
tion^ and say that the Scriptures do not reveal or assert 



df the inquiry. 23 

a future state. Yea, that I deny, that thef e m any di- 
vine revelation ; and, finally, that I am a hold, daring- 
Atheist. Supposing that these seven demons were found 
in me, what has all this to do with fairly answering my 
book 7 I have appealed to divine revelation, and at- 
tempted to show, that Hell is not a place of endless mis- 
ery, as good orthodox people have long believed. All 
that Mr. S. had to do v^^as to dispute my facts, and cor- 
rect my false interpretations of Scripture. But has he 
done this 7 If he had, there was no need of concentra- 
ting so many evils in one man, or imputing so many evil 
consequences to the book he volunteered hiu\self to an- 
swer. But as he could not refute the evidence, he is de- 
termined to frighten people, if possible, against the book. 
It would be an easy matter for me to retaliate in kind ; 
and John Wesley, the founder of the good people the 
Methodists, would furnish me with materials in abun- 
dance against Galvanism, ready for use. But, bad as I 
»*m, I dare not pursue this course ; nor is Mr. S. likely 
to dispossess me of my seven demons by his adoption of 
it. They may be reasoned out of me by a fair appeal to 
the Scriptures, but never frightened out of me. Mr. S. 
mistakes, if he even thinks to frighten the pubhc by such 
means, for men's curiosity will be excited to know what 
this horrid book contains. They will naturally say, 
" Can this book be as bad as he represents it 7 Let us 
read it and see for ourselves." But experience might 
have taught him better pohcy. By giving such frightful 
accounts of Unitarianism many have been excited to han- 
dle the 'bugbear for their own satisfaction, and have got 
over their fright. 

But I am told by Mr. S. that if I am to invalidate his 
seven inferences it must be by ^' superior argumentation." 
Well, w^e have got no very hard task before us small as 
our powers of reasoning are. 

1st Inference. '' The first consequence inevitably in- 
volved in this position is this : That if there be no future 
punishment for the wicked, then, in the constitution of the 
divine government, there is no IXiture retribution. What 
position? let it be asked. The position which he makes 
and thus puts in Italic type, " That the Scriptures nei- 
ther assert, nvr teach, nor admit the dvctrinv, of future 



24 A DEFENCE 

punishment.^ ^ This is the position from which this and 
all his other six inferences are drawn. But it should be 
remembered, that this position is of Mr. S.'s own man- 
ufacture, for we have said no such thing. Mr. S. first 
makes this position by altering my book, and then goes 
on to draw his seven inferences from his own self- invent- 
ed position fathered on it. But the moment this imposi- 
tion is detected, they all fall very harmless to the ground. 
But for argument's sake I shall admit it true, and shall 
proceed to show that he has no very great cause to be 
proud of his superior reasoning powers. 

Admitting then that I deny all future punishment in 
an other world, how does it follow that in the constitution 
of the divine government there is no future retribution ? 
My book shows, and Mr. S. allows in various places, 
that I hold to punishment in the present life. Here then 
is a 'future retribution for sin, unless he contends that 
God punishes sin here before it is committed. Is this 
very cogent reasoning? But again, says Mr. S. "we alt 
admit that a just and righteous government is, and must •» 
be administered in the exercise of retributive justice, 
Rewards and punishments are the necessary consequen- 
ces.'' True; but does Mr. S. mean to say, that there can 
be no righteous government unless its rewards and pun- 
ishments are carried into another world ? According to 
Mr. S. there can be no righteous government either of 
God or man, unless its punishments are to pursue the of- 
fenders beyond the grave. He may call this reasonings 
but few will believe it to be very convincing. But Mr. 
S. adds, " I need not spend a moment to prove, that 
there is a reward for the righteous : And it is equally 
unnecessary to prove that the reward of the righteous is 
to be in a future state.'' On this we remark, 

1st, The very thing which Mr. S. ought to prove, is 
that which he says, '' I need not spend a moment in 
proving." And what is this ? That the righteous and 
wicked are rewarded in a fiihiTe state. A man that 
takes things for granted at this rate, need be at no loss 
to prove just what he pleases. Nor need he ever be at 
a loss for texts of Scripture to prove his positions, if the 
two he quotes or alludes to, prove punishment in a fu- 
ture state. The first he quotes is Isa. iii, 11, ^' Woe 



OP TflE INQUIRY. 25 

unto the wicked, for the reward of his hand^ shall 
be given him." But is it added, in a future state ? 
This is Mr. S.'s addition to the text, one very necessa- 
ry in support of his position, but one which we do not 
admit, unless he produce his credentials as an inspired 
messenger of Heaven. But can he da this ? The oth- 
er text he refers to is Rom. ii, 8, 9, "The reward of 
the wicked is indignation and wrath upon every soul of 
man that doeth evil !" But does the passage add, in d 
future state 9 This is again Mr. S.'s addition to the 
text. Such are his proof texts in this place for a future 
state of rewards and punishments ; and we shall see that 
when he comes to take up the subject formally, what hd 
adduces is very little better. Can he believe, that I, or 
any man, ought to become a Believer of this doctrine by 
such proofs ? One thing I would merely observe in pas- 
sing, that according to Mr. S.'s orthodoxy in the above 
quotation, as he believes nien are to be punished in a 
future state for their evil deeds here, so for their good 
deeds here men are to be rewarded with happiness in 
that state. It seems then that eternal life is not the gift 
of God but the reward justly due men for their good 
deeds done in the body. Bad as I am, I am not so far 
away from orthodoxy as this. 

We cannot forbeax noticing how Mr. S. begs the 
question he ought to prove. He says, "this reward of 
punishment must be future. ^^ And why must it be fu- 
ture in another state of existence? He tells us, " for the 
same reason as the reward of the righteous is future." 
And why so? He adds, "They are both individually 
moral agents, and 7nust be dealt with in strict justice 
equally in a moral way," If Mr. S.'s must be is to 
be taken for God's word, no doubt it must be as he 
says. I, however, have my strong doubts if Mr. S. or 
any other man is " dealt with in strict justice," if any of 
us will find the next world a very happy state. If such 
an heretic might be allowed to say one word, he would 
recommend Mr. S. rather to say, *" if thou, Lord, 
shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? 
But there is forgiveness with thee, that* thou mayest 
be feared." Ps. cxxx, 3, 4. But why should I venture 
to say any thing about salvation by our Lord tJesus 
4 



2d A DEFENCE 

Christ, for Mr. S. in the very paragraph on which 1 am 
commenting, and in many other places, declares that I 
say nothing about this, nor does my scheme even admit it. 

But let us look at Mr. vS.'s wonderful reasonings a 
little further. I have said that hell is not a place of 
endless punishment. Well, what is the conclusion he 
draws from this? He from this infers, therefore there is 
no punishment for the wdcked, nor happiness for the 
righteous in a future world. But wdll the retributionists, 
with whom he wishes to claim relationship, think that 
this is good reasoning? They will hardly admit, that be- 
cause I deny there is none, therefore there can be none. 
Again, there is no future punishment, therefore there 
can be no future rewards. But does Mr. S. really be- 
lieve, that unless God make some of mankind miserable, 
he can make none of them happy? He certainly does 
mean this, for he says, if there be no future punishment 
there can be no future rewards. But Mr, S.'s divinity 
is no better than his logic, for if heaven is a reward for 
good done here, as punishment in hell is for evil, then 
it is no more a gift by grace, but of works; and the 
apiostle w^as mistaken in saying, that boasting was ex- 
cluded. 

2d. The next inference is, Mr. S. thinks, unless the 
law threatens punishment in a future state, there can be 
no divine law. But this is assuming the question in de- 
bate. Besides, according to this reasoning, there could 
be no divine law until sin entered, and the sinner was 
threatened with such a punishment. Further, unless sin 
and punishment are to exist for ever, we cannot have a 
divine law for ever. The moment they cease to exist, 
according to Mr. S.'s logic, all divine law and moral 
government cease to exist. ])(Ioreover he says, ''A le- 
gislator when he issues his Igfvvs, promises rewards to the 
obedient, and threatens punishment to the disobedient." 
Very true, but do legislators carry their rewards and 
punishments beyond death? If they do not, then accord- 
ing to Mr. S. there is no law nor moral government 
among men. But is this ranting, or reasoning. 

3d Inference. By Mr. S.'s logic, if '- the Scriptures 
do not assert a future retribution, then the Scriptures do 
rrot as'sert the cljaractev of dlvin£^ justice." It seendsi 



(>F THE INQUIRY. 2^ 

then, that justice has nothing to do in this world but to 
look on, and mark out its victims for punishment in the 
next. But does Mr. S. beheve, that his own descrip- 
tion of human miseries, p. 116, are no way connected 
with divine justice? It seems this world is no place for 
men to be punished or rewarded. Divine justice is no 
way concerned in the affairs of men. If Mr. S. will 
not learn a better logic, we hope he will read his Bible 
a little more attentively. We are sorry to see such a 
deficiency in regard to both, in a professed teacher, and 
so adverse to his own professed creed. The ortho- 
dox creed is, that divine justice is remarkably dis- 
played in the sufferings and death of Christ. But 
unless Jesus Christ goes to hell, there can be no divine 
justice in them, according to Mr. S.'s reasoning. 

4th Inference. '' If the Scriptures do not assert the 
doctrine of future retribution then they cannot reveal to 
man any way of salvation." Well, it seems if there is 
no hell to be saved from, Jesus Christ can do nothing 
for us, and the Gospel is of no use to mankind. There 
€an be no salvation from any thing by Jesus Christ, but 
salvation from hell, or Mr. S.'s future retribution ! ! 
This is doing great honour to the Saviour, and a high 
compliment paid the Gospel, that they do us no good 
here nor hereafter, but only save us from hell. But in 
the Inquiry we said, and now we call on Mr. S. to dis- 
prove it, " that Jesus Christ is never said to save any 
person from hell." But Mr. S. fully justifies by this 
our remarks there, that with orthodox preachers to be 
saved from hell is what they seem most concerned about 
in their preaching. We refer Mr. S. to the Inquiry, 
for an account of some very important things from which 
Jesus Christ saves, though he saves no person from hell. 
We would only here just hint, that he would be none 
the worse for being saved by him from a few evils which 
are but too manifest iu these discourses. It would be 
for his own good here, and perhaps for other people ^s 
good, if the Gospel had a little more influence over his 
mind, and would lead him to write with more candour, 
calmness and fairness, 

5th Inference. '* That volume of Scriptures which 
does not admit a future iretributiont, does not reveal aX 



^5 A DEFENCE 

assert a future state." The Scriptures say, ail things 
are possible with God. But no, says Mr. S. this is not 
true, for it is not possible that God could reveal to us a 
future state, unless he also reveal to us a hell in it. 
No : God can make known no heaven to us, without 
his hell or future retribution also. Does Mr. S. call 
this reasoning? 

6th Inference. '' The next consequence i« that there 
is no divine revelation." According to Mr. S. unless 
God reveal a hell to man, he can reveal nothing to him. 
Unless his hell or future retribution is found in the Bi- 
ble, it is no revelation, nor does it contain any informa- 
tion whatever from God. If it then says nothing posi- 
tive about his hell, it is a book very like mine, a book of 
negatives. I proceeded to examine the Bible as it stood 
on this subject. But Mr. S. proceeds on the principle that 
his hell or retribution must be found in it, or it is a book 
good for nothing. Would Mr. S. really be so foolish as 
to burn his Bi4)le because it does not teach his hell tor- 
ment ? And will he or any man else call such inferenees 
jast because the Bible does not teach it ? 

7th Inference. " The final consequence is, that Mr. 
p.'s theory leaves us without any God ; at least it re- 
veals none," &c. Mr. S. says that "this consequence 
is too awful for discussion." And I say, it is too absurd 
to deserve any reply. I would only say, my theory, as 
he is pleased to term it, represents God as bringing good 
out of evil, and finally rendering all men for ever happy. 
This, according to Mr. S. is to leave the world without a 
God. His theory is, that God has prepared a hell for a 
large portion of his creatures, and therefore the world has 
got a God. Which of the two systems leads most to 
Atheism, let our readers judge. It will be allowed, 
that if he, by his system, gives the world a God, he is 
one not so much like John's as mine, for, '' God is love." 
But enough about Mr. S.'s seven inferences, for they 
did not deserve any reply. 

In concluding this discourse Mr, S. informs us, '' Our 
immediate object after this discourse will be, to set up- 
and establish, in opposition to Mr. B. this position, viz. 
That in the constitution of the divine government there 
w a future righteom retribution^^ But why does he 



OF THE INQUIRY. 29 

not set lip and establish^ in opposition to me, this posi- 
tion, viz. That in the constitution of the divine govern- 
ment there is a future righteous retribution of endless 
misery. To have established this, would have answered 
my book, and until it is established the book is not an- 
swered. But if we had any hope that Mr. S. would 
listen to our advice, we would suggest to him to lay aside 
all his preconceived positions and hypothesis, and simply 
examine into the true sense of the divine oracles, without 
the least regard to them. But it seems Mr. S.'s ^\e^ 
remaining discourses are to be taken up in establishing a 
future righteous retribution. This he is to set up and 
establish in opposition to my book. I must then either 
here close my reply or follow him on to his own ground. 
The latter I prefer for two reasons. First, in establish- 
ing a future retribution, there are two or three passages 
of Scripture considered in the " Inqtiiry," the views I 
have given of which he controverts. It will be necessa- 
ry, therefore to consider them a little further. Second, 
if Mr. S. by the&e, or any other texts, establishes a fu- 
ture retribution, it is of deep importance for us to believe 
it, or to show why we think him mistaken in what he ad- 
vances. Both of these we shall attend to in the second 
part. The consideration of the first of these belonged 
to a defence of the " Inquiry," but being texts which 
he considered teaching his doctrine of a future retribu- 
tion, we left them to be considered in the second part- 
We have no desire to act with Mr. S. on thei maxim, 
''Divide and oonquer." No; he shall either have a 
conquest or a defeat, with all his troops in the field at 
onc6>. 



PART II 

3VIR. SABINE'S PROOFS 

OF A FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 



We are now to examine Mr. Sabine's proofs, for 
Ms doctrine of a future retribution. The retribution 
for which he contends, is thus stated by himself, p. 51; 
" By retribution you will bear in mind that we mean 
future punishment, or the punishment of the wicked in a 
fiiture state." He does not contend for endless punish- 
ment; nor does it appear that he contends for punishment 
of soul and body after the resurrection of the dead. If 
he believes either of these, they do not form any part of 
the subject of his lecturer. It appears from his book, 
that the punishment for which he contends, is a punish- 
ment for the soul in its " disembodied^^ state. He in- 
deed speaks of soul and body being destroyed in Gehen- 
na, but I am unable to perceive, whether he considers 
this the same, or a different punishment, from the pun- 
ishment of the disembodied spirit in Hades. Though 
w^e have shewn in the '-^ Inquiry," that the scripture re- 
presentations of Hades and Gel>enna are very different, 
yet he takes no notice of this. His object is to prove a 
future retribution; and, overboking this, he presses in- 
to his service the texts about Hades and Gehenna, with 
others, to establish his point. 

The reader has now got to bear in mind, that Mr. 
S.'s proof texts must not only prove that sinners are 
punishedy but that they are punished in a future state 
of existence. A thousand texts proving that sinners are 
punished, is nothing to his purpose, unless they prove that 
this punishment is inflicted on soul, or body, or both, in some 
place or state, beyond this mortal existence. It ought 
to be noticed, that supposing Mr. S. to prove a future 
retribution, yea, an eternal punishment to the wicked in 
a future state, from texts which do not speak of Sheol, 
Hades, Taiiarus, or Gehenna, yet he p:oves nothing 



M^. Sabine's proofs, &lc. 31 

against my book. Should he prove it, not from them, 
but from some other texts, he and his orthodox friends 
ought to thank me for correcting their mistake, m foiand- 
ing their doctrine of endless misery on texts which do 
not support it. 

Gen. ii, 17, is Mr. Sabine's text to his second dis- 
course, which he entitles, *' Divine government con- 
stituted upon the principles of future retribution*" '' In 
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'' 
The question to be settled is thus stated by himself, p. 23. 
" The question we have now to settle i^, whether theJ 
retributions of justice be wholly exercised in this state, 
or extended to a future state." To this we agree, for 
we have just stated this to be Ae precise question at is- 
sue. Mr. S. says, p. 24, " The penalty threatened is 
death.^^ And here the question is supposed to pinch. 
"" What is the nature of that penalty here threatened 
under the form of death? WhatisdeathP^ Yes, indeed, 
here the question does pinch; and Mr. S. seems to have felt 
the pinch. Well, how does he relieve the difficulty? He 
says, it ''is to be met two ways, and both in agreement." 
He asserts, that had Adam " maintained his obedience," 
his reward would have been, not a temporal one, but a 
reward, *' stretching out into the regions of an eternal 
scene." It would have been " an eternal spiritual bles- 
sedness." He even says, " I need not press this inqui- 
ry, it must be admitted, and our opponent will not refuse 
h^ assent." We have noticed some of Mr. S.'s TYiust 
~ e arguments already. He begins by asserting boldly; 
e proceeds by begging the question earnestly; it Tnust 
he admitted is his conclusion; and he tells his readers in 
confirmation, that his " opponent will not refuse his as- 
sent." The reason Mr. S. thinks I will assent to this, 
is thus stated; '' For this reward M^r. B. grants to ev- 
ery ungodly rebel at his death; and surely he will not 
deny a heaven of spiritual happiness to such as finish 
their course in righteousness." We not only withhold 
our assent here, but must express our supprise at Mr. 
S.'s notions of heaven, and the way of obtaining it. 
This is far from being orthodoxy. Dr. Franklin would 
have taught him better orthodoxy than this, although he 
is not classed with orthodox people. In gpposrtion to 
the whtjle of the above we remurk,- 



I 



32 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

1st, Tliat the state Adam was created in, was never 
intended for continuance, as the event sufficiently show- 
ed. To reason, therefore, about what would have been 
Adam's condition, from what was never intended to con- 
tinue, is what I would call vain reasonings. 2d. Ad- 
am had no promise of a life of spiritual and eternal bles- 
sedness in heaven, when the threatening was denounc- 
ed; nor can Mr. S. produce evidence, that any other but 
the life he then enjoyed, was implied as the opposite of 
the threatening. When, or where, or how, did God 
promise to Adam spiritual and eternal heavenly blessed- 
ness, if he continued in obedience? We demand the 
proof of this, for all that Mr. S. says is gratuitous. 3d. 
A life of spiritual and eternal heavenly blessedness, 
comes to men, as the gift of God through our Lord Je-. 
sus Christ. But had Adam any intimation about Christ, 
or this life through him, until after he had sinned? Mr. 
S. should recollect, that Christ is never said to have 
procured the heaven to men, which they lost, either by 
Adam's sin or by their own. This heaven comes by the 
death and resurrection of Jesus; for if Christ is not rais- 
ed from the dead, they w^ho have fallen asleep in him 
have perished. See 1 Peter, i, 3, 4; and 1 Cor. xv. 
Mr. S. is entirely off orthodox ground, for he makes a 
heaven of spiritual and eternal blessedness the reward of 
personal righteousness. But this is neither orthodox nor 
scriptural; for it is not by works of righteousness, but 
according to God's mercy we are saved. Adam, with 
alibis righteousness, could not obtain heaven, any more 
than '' every ungodly rebel at his death;" to whom Mr. 
S. says I grant it. If it be a gift, and a gift by grace, 
none but such as are trusting to themselves that they are 
righteous and despising others, can object to God's con- 
ferring it on the one more than on the other. Rom. v^ 
12 — 21. Besides, according to Mr. S.'s views, he 
makes God provide for a thing, which Vi^as never to take 
place. He proceeds on the ground, that God provided 
eternal life in heaven for Adam if he continued in obe- 
dience; yet he perfectly knew he would not, yea never 
intended he should continue. While Adam continued 
obedient, he had his rewdrd in his obedience; nor is any 
Q.th,er reward expressed or implied in the passage, or in 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 33 

the history. We call on Mr. S. to produce evidence, 
that any sacred writer intimates, that a life of heavenly 
; blessedness would have been Adam's reward for obedi- 
ence, had he not sinned. Are we obliged to receive un- 
quahfied assertions for divine revelation? 

But let us look at the other way, in which Mr. S. 
meets the difficulty, which he says pinched. He meets 
it thus: as heaven, or future eternal spiritual blessedness 
would have been the reward of Adam's obedience, so 
must his disobedience extend his punishment to a future 
state. He says, " Man's punishment, if he transgress, 
must be spiritual and future, a punishment adapted to his 
moral character in a future state." And why did he 
not add, " and by the same rule must be endless in its 
duration." Why he does not, and why he did not use 
this as a strong argument in its favour, we are left to 
guess. Permitting me do this, I would say, Mr. S. 
wished to get people to allow, that Adam's obedience 
would have brought him to endless happiness in heaven- 
Admitting this, one could hardly have the face to deny, 
that his disobedience must, as the reverse of this, bring 
him to endless punishment. Thus people are made con- 
certs to the doctrine of endless misery, before they 
are aware. But what evidence does Mr. S. produce? 
He produces only another of his must he arguments; for 
he adds, '' The punishment mt*s^ of necessity he in a fu- 
ture state, adapted to his moral, rather than to his natural 
condition," Shall we never have done with such argu- 
ments? But Mr. S. lays aside suppositions, and comes to 
a fact about Adam. He denies that "natural death' ^ 
was the penalty threatened Adam, and in proof refers to 
his living 930 years after, and becoming the father of 
many generations. But if Adam's living 930 years be 
any argument against natural death being the penalty 
threatened, it is equally so against his future retribution. 
Because Adam did not die, the. day he sinned, a natural 
death, therefore this could not be the penalty. Well, 
because Adam did not go into a future state of retribu- 
tion the day he sinned, therefore this could not be thQ 
penalty. What now comes of his wonderful argument? 
But he says further, "This threatening was executed, 
or at least was in the way of legal process, so that Ad* 



3^ MR. SABINE'S PROOFS OF A 

am was the subject of death in the day of his transgress- 
sion." Yes, but this holds good, equally on the ground 
that the penalty was natural death, as on the ground of 
Mr. S.'s future retribution. Besides, on my ground the 
penalty death, was finally inflicted, but on his, if Adam 
was saved by Jesus Christ, the penalty never was, nor 
never will be inflicted upon him. The threatening to 
Adam was a nulhty, and God's word has failed. The 
marginal reading of the 16th verse is, " eating thou shait 
eat," or shalt go on to eat. In the 17th verse it is, 
'' dying thou shalt die,'' or shalt go on to die. And 
this is in agreement with Mr. S.'s ow^n views, that the 
threatening from the day of his transgression, was in the 
way of legal process. This is according to the fact. 
But in proof that the death threatened Adam was a fu- 
ture retribution, or punishment in another world, he re- 
fers to several texts in the New Testament. The first 
is Rom. V, 12, 18, which he thus quotes, page 26: '' By 
one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin; 
and so death passed upon ail men, for that all have sin- 
ned. — By the offence of one, judgment came upon ali 
meu to condemnation." This is a most unfortunate 
quotation for our friend, Mr. S. For if the death spoken of 
be punishment in another world, he must believe ^ that it 
hath " passed on all men." Then all are to be punish- 
ed in another world; and instead of universal salvation, 
we have got universal punishment. But does he be- 
lieve this? But Mr. S. thinks his retribution must be 
taught, ^' for this condemnation to death, is here con- 
trasted with that life to which man is restored by the 
salvation o^f Christ." But here Mr. S. goes to work in 
his usual way to beg the question, for he says, " Surely 
no one will attempt to prove, that by death is here meant 
an extinction of animal life." It was his business to 
prove that it is not, but a future retribution or punish- 
ment in another world. »Let him then lay his bones to 
the task, for the text nor its context, does not say one 
word, that it has any reference to punishment in another 
state of existence. The context shows the contrary; 
but we w^ish him to prove his own doctrine. 

John viii, 24, is his next text. ''If ye believe not 
that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." All that Mr. 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 35 

S. says on this text is this: '' Does not every one see that 
this is to die in a state of unpardoned guilt, and remain 
exposed to the retribution of condemnation?" Is not 
this getting along at a miserable rate, to prove his point 
by a mere appeal to his readers, and taking it for grant- 
ed that they are all, no doubt, of his way of thinking on 
the subject? Does the text say a word about punishment 
after they died? Mr. S., we think, will not affirm that 
it does. What is it then to the purpose? for this is the 
very point to be proved. But we would notice here, 
that en in this passage rendered in, is in other texts ren- 
dered by, for, or on account of. See Parkhurst on the 
word. Our Lord then merely told the Jews, that they 
would die by, for, or on account of their «i|is, if they 
did not believe that he was the Messiah. This did take 
place, for on that generation of the Jews, came all the 
righteous blood shed on the earth. Josephus declares, 
that over a million of them 4ied in the destruction of 
their city and temple. 

1 John iii, 14, is his next text. ^' We know that we 
have passed from death unto life." Does Mr- S. indeed 
suppose, that persons passing from " de'ath in trespasses 
and sins" to '^ faith in Christ," is any proof that they 
were exposed to endless punishment in a future world ? 
A man must be at his wit's end for proof, to quote such 
texts to prove such a doctrine. If we had known he was 
in such a strait, we would have furnished him with some 
more plausible than these, 

John V, 24^ is the next text brought up. ^' Vetily, 
verily, I say unto you, he that hath my word, and bq-- 
lieveth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and 
shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from 
death unto life." This text he passes by without any re- 
mark, or even begging the question. See on the last text, 

1 John V, 16, he quotes thus, without referring to 
chapter or verse : '' There is a sin unto death, — and 
there is a sin not unto death." On this he thus com- 
ments, and it is all he says about it; '■'' We know there 
is no sin but what is connected with natural death, and 
therefore, that sin ivhich is unto deaths must expose to 
something beyond the death of the body." Mr. S. a^ a 
public teacher at least, ought to have known, that m 



36 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

apostolic times, sins were committed, and that by Chris- 
tians too, which God punished by inflicting death. Such 
was the case with Annanias and Sapphira. Such also 
was the case with some in the Church at Corinth, Acts. 
5th, 1 Cor. xi, 40. In the above verse, so partially 
quoted, the person is called a brother, who might sin this 
sin unto death. Christians guilty of other sins might be 
forgiven, see Jas. v. 14, 15, but such sins were not to be 
pardoned, even when prayei-^ were made for their forgive- 
ness. No; temporal death was to be inflicted as their 
punishment. Does Mr. Sabine never pray for the par- 
don of any but those whose sins do not expose them to 
his future retribution? Besides, we really thought, that 
he considered all sins as exposing men to a punishment 
in another world. How to make these things hang to- 
gether with any tolerable decency we know not. These 
are his proof texts, and then says p. 27, " Passages might 
be multiplied to confirm and illustrate this point, but it 
would be only taking up your time to little purpose.'' 
Yes indeed, passages such as Mr. S. has produced might 
be multiplied to a great extent, and if multiplied, it would 
indeed be only taking up our time to little purpose, and 
if such texts prove his future retribution, he can very 
easily prove any thing. 

After summing up what he has said p. 27, he expres- 
ses himself to be at a loss, what sense to put upon lan- 
guage, or to accoui>t for Adam's violation of the divine 
law under such a penalty, and he to live another day. 
But why is our friend Mr, S, not at as great a loss that 
he lived another day out of his state of future punishment? 
If his future retribution miglit be suspended for 930 years, 
why might not his natural death be suspended for the 
same period. 

But we shall now give Mr. S. a few more proofs, that 
neither eternal deaths nor his future retribution in an- 
other state of existence, was included in this threatening 
to Adam. If they should happen to be like the rest of 
my proofs, negative, we think they may at least pass for 
as much as his mere assertions 

1st. God's threatening to Adam says not a word about 
eternal death, or Mr. S.'s retribution. These are ex- 
pressions alike unknown in scripture. Death, of any 



>.] 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED- 37 

kind, must have been unknown to Adam from experience 
or observation. If either of these was intended by the 
term death, it is reasonable to suppose some explanation 
would have been given him. It is not God's usual 
way with his creatures, to practise deception on them by 
delivering threatenings in language involving such conse- 
quences, not understood by them. Let it not be said 
that they did understand it in this way, for, 2d, God's 
command to multiply and replenish the earth forbids such 
an interpretation. Gen. i, 26 — 29. is it said. But this 
command was given while he was innocent. True ; but 
is not the same command repeated Gen. ix, 1, 2, after 
sin entered, and was the cause of the flood ? We leave 
it with judicious men to say, if such a command would 
have been repeated, if sir^ involved men in eternal death, 
or Mr. S.'s retribution. If this was the reason why God 
said of men, '' It repenteth me that I have made them," 
the command would have been, " Let the race become 
extinct." But it seems, according to some, God was 
determined to people the regions of endless misery, or, 
according to Mr. S. furnish subjects for a future tremen- 
dous retribution in another world. But, Sd, The sen- 
tences pronounced on all the offenders are inconsistent 
with such a view of the threatening. Allowing the ser- 
pent to be, as the orthodox believe, a fallen angel or 
devil, he is not condemned to either eternal death or Mr. 
S.'s retribution in another w^orld. See Gen. iii, 14<, 15. 
Nor was such a sentence pronounced on the woman, but 
something very different. See Gen. iii, 16. Nor on Ad- 
am. See Gen. iii, 17 — 20. What could be a better com- 
mentary on the threatening, than the execution of the 
sentence? But will Mr. S. dare to affirm, that a syllable 
is said about his retribution in another world ? The doc- 
trine of purgatory, and prayers for the dead, may just as 
well be alleged from the whole history as it. 4ith. As 
Adam and Eve no doubt understood this matter fully as 
well as Mr. S. let us see if they understood eternal death, 
or his future retribution, as included in the death threat- 
ened them. If they believed this, I ask, would they, 
without scruple of conscience, proceed, to propagate chil- 
dren, as we find they did ? See Gen. iv, 1, 2. Would 
Mr. S. or his orthodox friends, really enter into the mar- 



38 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

ried state, if they sincerely believed tliat they might be 
the instruments of giving existence to ten or more beings 
who must lift up their eyes in endless misery ? We pre- 
sume this part of their creed is thrown into the back 
ground on such occasions, for what man of any principle 
would be the father of a child where there was such a 
risk ? Let it not be objected here, that marriage is a 
commanded duty. It is ; but let all soberly consider, if 
God would ever have given such a command if this doc- 
trine be true. We may add> if Adam and Eve believed 
this doctrine, would they not rather have died of grief 
for thek' crime, and suffer their race to end with them- 
selves, than to entail such misery on so many of their 
posterity. But what we think proves conclusively that 
they believed no such doctrine is, that they -taught no 
such thing to their children or their posterity. Let their 
whole history be consulted, but not a word is said to 
Gain, Abel, or any one else, that they were subjected to 
eternal death or Mr. S^'s future retribution. Cain was 
wicked, but his parents say nothing to him on such a sub- 
ject. See Gen. iv, 8—16. Nor is Lam^ech threatened 
mth any such punishment. See verses 23, 24. I ask, 
5th, How did Moses understand the death threatened 
Adami He wrote this account many ages after Adam 
sinned. Had he believed as the orthodox or Mr. S. does^ 
is it possible he should not mention it? Yea, I may ask, 
how did all the sacred writers understand this death threat,- 
ened to Adami Does any one of them say, that it includ- 
ed in it eternal death, or even punishment in a future state 
of existence? The expression eternal death is not once 
used in the Bible, and that it involved Mr. S.'s future 
'i^tribution^ is the very thing he has got to prove. Let 
him do this if he can, not by assertions, not by adding to 
the scriptures, but by a candid appeal to the texts with 
their contexts where he supposes such a doctrine is taught. 
6th, But what ought to settle this question for ever is, 
Jesus Christ is never said to redeem from eternal death 
nor from Mr. S.'s punishment in a future state. He 
does redeem from death, and this is exphcitly stated, see 
Hosea xiii, 14, and compare 1 Cor. xv, 54 — 58, and 
Heb. ii, 14, and 1 John iii,10. But in no text that I can 
find is it said, that the death he redeems from, is a death 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 39 

including in it, temporary or eternal punishment in a fu- 
ture state, 

I stated, that endless misery in hell, was not thre'aten- 
ed to Adam, to the antideluvians, to the Sodomites, nor 
to any persons under the Old Testament dispensation. 
Mr. S. admits this p. 29. He adds, p. 31, ''I believe 
all is a blank in the Mosaic history. '' How came he 
then to learn from a blank that Noah preached his retri- 
bution? We thank him for this admission, and his readers 
0U2;ht to notice it. 

Why then does he, p. 30, blame m^e for my unbecom- 
ing boldness, in asserting, that the doctrine of future re- 
tribution was not believed by the Patriarchs. Does he 
find them speak of his future retribution any more than 
of endless misery? His phrases, retributive justice, and 
future retrihutio^l^ borrowed from scholastic theology, 
or the idea he means to convey by them, were alike un- 
known in those days. But he adds, ' ' With this bold chal- 
lenge before us, I ask, for what were the sacrifices offer- 
ed? In these was there no recognition of retribution? 
No sense or consciousness of offence? '^ O yes, Mr. S. 
but what you have got to prove is, that in the sacrifices 
there was a recognition of punishment in another state 
of existence. If you could have found proof of this, why 
beg the question of your readers? 

But he goes on thus begging the question, and even 
altering the Bible as well as my book to suit his purpose. 
He says, p. 30, '' What are we to understand of Noah's 
doctrine as a preacher of righteousnes? In preaching 
righteousness, could he avoid the doctrine of retributive 
justice? Is it not said that by righteousness he condemn- 
ed the world, and became heir of the retribution by 
Heaven's favour bestowed." 

The passage Mr. S. thus alters is found, Heb. xi, 7. 
He is determined to have his retribution in the Bible. If 
the Spirit of God did not insert it, he foists it in without 
any preface or apology. Let our readers compare the 
apostle with Mr. S.'s edition of his words, and cease to 
wonder that he should mutilate and alter any thing that 
I have said. Notice, that though the apostle says, that 
by faith Noah condemned the tvorld, he does not say, 
that by his preaching, conduct, or otherwise, he con- 



40 MR. SABINE'S PROOFS OF A 

demned them to a punishment in another ivorld. But 
Mr. S. might have inserted this, just as well as the oth- 
er in the text, for in preaching righteousness he tells us, 
that Noah could not avoid the doctrine of retributive 
justice; and this is with him punishment in another state 
of existence. If Noah could not avoid this doctrine, it 
is rather a surprising thing, that Moses could avoid 
saying a word about it. If Mr. S. could have found 
it, he had no occasion to alter the Bible by insert- 
ing it. If Noah, in preaching righteousness, could not 
avoid Mr. S.'s doctrine of punishment in a future 
world, how can any other man preach righteousness, 
and avoid it? All then who do not preach punishment in 
a future state, are no preachers of righteousness. Up- 
on this principle of reasoning, Noah himself, though 
called a preacher of righteousness was not one, for not 
a syllable is said that he preached Mr. S.'s retribution. 
But Mr. S. asks, p. 31, how I '' know that Noah did 
not preach retribution?'' Answer; I know this in the 
same way, that Mr. S. does that he never preached the 
doctrine of endless misery. I know it in the same way, 
that I know that he did not preach the doctrine of pur- 
gatory. I know this too from his own confession, for he 
says, p. 31, '' IbeUeve all is a blank in the Mosaic history, 
not one word of Noah's preaching or meditation on the 
subject." But in the same page^ says Mr. S. " But does 
not every one see that our friend Balfour is only proving 
negatives, and the whole of his theory so far stands upon 
negatives, and upon nothing else." It is not easy to 
prove a negative. But I prove this negative in the same 
way, that an apostle proved another negative. Heb. vii. 
14. Why does not my friend S. say, " But does not 
every one see that our friend Paul is only provmg nega- 
tives, and the whole of his theory so far stands upon ne- 
gatives, and upon nothing else." But Paul, it seems^ 
thought that this was evident j^roof for a negative, not- 
withstanding all he says to the contrary. But further; 
as Mr. S. had the positive side, and not the negative of 
this question, positive evidence was required of him. 
But does he give us any? So far from this, hcvgoes on 
begging the question in one place, altering my book in 
another, and determined to have proof positive, of his 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 41 

future retribution, he at last ventures to insert it into 
Heb. xij 7, referred to above. But my book is a book of 
negatives, which seems to trouble our friend Mr. S. not 
a little: And because he cannot give us any positive 
proof for his retribution, I must produce positive proof 
against it. But a Catholic demands Mr- S. to bring 
positive proof against his purgatory. Says Mr. S. ** the 
Bible says nothing about it. Your business is to prove it 
by positive evidence, as you believe it." Let Mr. S. go 
and do likewise in the case before us. 

But in p. 31, Mr. S. has a reference to 1 Peter, iii, 
20. " Peter says again that after the long suffering of 
God, and the righteous preaching of Noah, God brought 
in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.'^ Yes^ he says 
this, but does Peter or any other sacred writer say, that 
God brought the world of the ungodly into a future state for 
punishment? But this wa» what Peter ought to have said, 
to have said any thing suited to Mr. S.'s purpose. 2 Pe- 
ter ii, 6, is the other text he alludes to, rather than quotes. 
His remark on this text is, " And so in regard to Sodom 
and Gomorrah, condemned them with an overthrow, 
making them an ensample unto those that after should 
live ungodly." But does this passage say, that God 
*' condemned them with an overthrow to a future state 
to be punished? But how could they, on this view of the 
subject, be an ensample there to others, who should aftep 
live ungodly? But the overthrow of these cities have 
been to past ages, and will be for ages to come, an en- 
sample of God's punishment of men for iniquity. Mr. 
S. may see that had he nnderstood my views, and I may 
add those of the Hopkinsians, he need not have misrep- 
resented us as in p. 28, that we decry '' all obedience 
under a sense of penalty." But nothing can stand in 
his way in defence of his present favourite doctrine of 
retribution. I regret, for his own sake, that he is not 
more on his guard against such palpable misrepresent- 
ations. Can such things help a righteous cause? 

What Mr. S. says, p. 32, about the silence of the 
Old Testament concerning a future state, has been suffi- 
ciently noticed in the "Inquiry." But we add here, 
that the New Testament writers recognise Ijie Old, as 
believers in a futui^e state of happiness. See Heb. xi^ 
6 



42 MR. SABINE'S PROOFS OF A 

with other places which might be named. Well, can Mr, 
S. show us, that they recognise them as beUeving also in- 
endless misery, or his futm^e retribution? If he cannot, he 
would do well to reconsider the subject, before he writes 
again, or asserts, that Noah preached his doctrine. Biit 
we shall give him a little more proof, that temporal 
punishment, and not hiis future retribution, or endless, 
misery, was inflicted on the people. 

1st. No other punishment is stated in the history of 
Noah, or the punishment of the people at the fljood. See 
Gen. vi, 7, 13—17; and vii, 4, 21, 22, 23; and viii, 20" 
—22. Man was to be destroyed from the face of the 
earth. But is it any where said, he was to be sent to- 
hell, or any other place, to suffer temporary or endles* 
misery, after he was destroyed from the earth? If Mr. 
S. or any other m^m will affirm this, let evidence of it 
be produced, for assertions are good for nothing in such 
a case. 2d^ There is just as much said about punish- 
ment in a future state to the beasts of the earth, which 
perished in the flood, as there is to men, who perished in 
it. From any evidence the history affords, the endless 
or temporary punishment of the former in a future state, 
m^y as well be proved as the latter. It affords not a 
particle of proof for either, and if we are allowed to as- 
sert in the one case, why not also in the other. 3d. If 
temporary or endless misery in a future state, was to be 
the state of those who perished in. the flood, it is certain- 
ly not very likely that Noah believed this, yet w^as silent 
to them on the subject. If he did preach so to them, it 
is not less remarkable that no inspired writer should say 
he did. But Mr. S. can as easily learn from their stu- 
died silence his doctrine of retribution, as he did ncrfu- 
ture punishment irom mine. The improvement which 
the after writers in. scripture make of the history of 
Noah and the flood, show that they did not believe as 
Mr. S. does, that Noah preached punishment in a future 
state of existence. Peter uses it, 1st Epistle, iii, 20, 
21, as a figure to illustrate Christian baptism. It is re- 
ferred to Isa. liv, 9, 1(J, to illustrate God's faithfulness. 
to his people. It is also used, Ezek. xiv, 14—20. Heb. 
xi, 7, to show, that faith and obedience are the best 
preservatives in the midst of God's pubhc judgments. 



TUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 43 

?against sin. We find also that God's judgment on the 
people at the flood, is set forth as a warning to those, 
who should afterwards live ungodly. 2 Peter ii, 5, 6. 
And la'stly, I find it used to set forth the situation of the 
Jews as to false security and insensihiiity, whea Goi 
visited them in the destruction of their city and temple. 
Matt, xxiv, 37—40; Luke xvii, 26—31. Now, these 
are all the ways the sacred writers improve the history 
of Noah and the flood, for the benefit of mankind. But 
ii seems our friend Mr. S. was much wiser than any af 
them. I may just here add, that what he says, pp. 30, 
33, about a '' unison of cases,'' relative to the punish- 
ment of Adam, the Sodomites, and antideluvians, de- 
serves no notice, except to say, that if Mr. S. judged 
me sane, he never could suppose what he imputes to me. 
We thought the unison was stated to be, that Adam, the 
Sodomites, and antideluvians were alike, in having no 
eternal misery threatened them. If I left him in ''the 
dark on the subject,'' he must continue in it. But in 
justificatiQU of the ;C0urse pursued, Mr^ S. proceeds to 
quote the Christian Repository, p. 34. ^' He is so un- 
derstood by the " Christian Repository," a journal edit- 
ed upon the principles of Winchester and Murray, the 
principles avowed as I understand by two societies of 
our city. Jt has the following passage. " The avowed 
object of the treatise is, to sap the foundation of endless 
misery, but the arguments made use of^ weigh equally 
against all misery in a future state, whether temporary 
or endless. Mr. B.'s views, therefore, introduce all 
men into heaven at deaths though they expire in the very 
act of murder. I have, eontinues the Reviewer, men- 
tioned ^is, that the reader may nqt be deceived on this 
point. For in the " Inquiry" there appears a studied 
silence on that point, although the arguments are level- 
ed at the root of future, as well as endless punishment.'^ 
Notice, 

1st, That it is confessed a|: last, what the object of 
my book was. What then was it? To teach no future 
punishment, Mr. S^ has all along been affirming. But 
now, both he and the Christian Repository say, " The 
ictvowed object of the treatise is to sap the foundation of 
endless misery^" The tjuth will sometimes come out, in 



44 MR. SABINE^S PROOFS OP A 

spite of a man^s self, and we here thank Mr. S. for this 
inadvertant confession. 2d. But Mr. S. may probably 
say, is it not immediately added, '' But the arguments 
made use of, weigh equally against all misery in a future 
state, whether temporary or endless.'' Yes, but it only 
makes the bad worse; for it is plain if my arguments 
have any weight against endless misery, it is allowed, 
that they weigh equally against all misery in a future 
state, whether teqiporary or endless. Do my arguments 
then weigh any thing against endless misery? The wri- 
ter in the Repository thinks they do not, for he says, 
"^ I am far from being a believer in endless misery, but I 
am free to confess that I find nothing in the volume be- 
fore me, which convinces me of its falsity." Well, the 
orthodox' endless hell, and Mr. S.'s temporary hell; are 
Iboth perfectly safe from my attack. It is very evident, 
however, that both hells must stand or fall together. 
Should the orthodox' endless hell fall, by my sapping its 
foundation, the other tem-porary hell must go with it, 
for it is allowed, that my arguments weigh equally 
against both. Mr. S. seems alarmed, the armies of the 
living God are alarmed, and he tells us what we did not 
know before, that the retributionists are alarmed, yea, 
he wishes to alarm all, and to rouse them to embark 
" all their best moi'al powers and means in counteract- 
ing," the progress, influence, and tendency of my book. 
See p. 38. But why is he so much alarmed? for the 
Christian Repository assures him, that there is nothing 
in my book to prove the falsity of endless misery. But 
it seems he was not of this opinion; nor was tliis the 
opinion of many a serious Christian, who asked, " will 
HO one meet this uncircumcised Philistine?" My avow- 
ed object was to sap the foundation of endless misery. 
Contrary, however, to '' the zealous and sound," he 
judged it the ^' most tenable and safe,^' to attack my 
book on the ground of future retribution. This, says he, 
" AiFords us the best opportunity of assailing our adver- 
sary with success." p. 25. But had ''the zealous and 
sound," only consulted with the writer in the Reposito- 
ry, he could have hushed all their fears to rest by in- 
forming them, '* I find nothing in the volume which con- 
vinces me of the falsity of endless misery." We see. 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 45 

therefore, no cause for all this false alarm. Mr. S. deserves 
a reproof for making so much noise about nothing. But 
in the same page, and the fallowing, Mr. S. proceeds to 
carricature my views thus: They '* negative every moral 
principle in God and man." Their course is '^Mate- 
rialism," and ''their conclusion, Atheism." They make 
men "mere mechanical systeips of a perishing world." 
My arguments are " exceedingly defective;" and my 
" proofs are mostly negatives or mere assumptions." 
Mr. S. is not done yet. " The inquirer does not appear 
to be distinctly acquainted with the precise subject he 
has undertaken to discuss; hence there is an indistinct- 
ness in the selection of his arguments, ^nd in the con- 
clusions at which he would arrive." Moreover ''he 
does not, as he goes on, seem to know whether he is to 
disprove the doctrine of endless or future punishment, 
But from what he has admitted in the statement of the 
question, we shall hold him to one point, namely, future 
punishment." If this is Mr. S.'s bona fide opinion, 
most people would conclude, that he who stooped to 
answer such a book, was not much wiser than the man 
who wrote it. Strange, that such a book as this should 
alarm Mr. S. so much. That it should lead so many 
serious Christians to put such questions as he says they 
did. That even the retributionists should be alarmed 
about it. That he should be at so much trouble to 
prelEich, and write it down. And even to confess that It 
nearly converted him from his former opinions. And it 
is not less strange that he should immediately add, p. 35, 
" 2d. It appears that the grotmd assigned us in this con- 
troversy is the most tenable and safe, and affords us the 
best opportunity of assailing our adversary with success. 
I am aware that some of the zealous and the sound 
would urge, that we prove first, the eternity of future 
punishment, and then, say they, ' All is done at once.^ 
But I confess that I am a little fearful of attempting to 
prove so much at once; indeed it is quite unnecessary: 
if I can prove a future retribution, Mr. B. and all wha 
stand on the same ground are defeated, and the trutli 
triumphs; and then you are left to form your own judg- 
ment on the extent and duration of future retribution." 
What! W^s not any ground tenable and safe enough to 



4i6 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

put down such a book? What ground could he taken, 
that did not afford opportunity to assail such an adversa- 
ry with perfect success? What! such a book as he de- 
scribes the " Inquiry'' to be, make him afraid to advo- 
cate the doctrine of endless misery I He says, "The 
zealous and the sound would urge" to "prove first the 
eternity of future punishment, and then, say they, ' All 
is done at once.' " The zealous and sound, it seems, 
understood my book better than he did, and urged him 
to his duty as a true orthodox man. But he tells us 
what deterred him from his duty. " Bat I confess that 
I am a little fearful of attempting to prove so much at 
once." But Mr. S. need not be so fearful of proving 
this at once, if endless misery be true. Is he afraid of 
proving the truth? Or is he afraid it cannot be proved 
true ? Or w^hat other end has he in view in being so very 
cautious on this ground. We shall see this presently. 
But he says the ground he has taken, " is the most ten- 
able and safe, and affords us the best opportunity of as- 
sailing our adversary with success." What! has Mr. 
S. forgot that my book is stated to be on the very same 
page and other places " exceedingly defective in argu- 
ments," and my proofs "mostly negatives, or ntere as- 
sumptions." It seems after all that there was something 
about it which made him say, " I confess that I am a 
little fearful." A little fearful about what? He was a 
little fearful to assail me on the ground of endless mise- 
ry, and hence he takes up his position on the ground of 
a future retribution. The zealous and the sound who 
urged Mr. S. to assail me on the ground of endless mis- 
ery, seems to have understood this to be my ground, and 
urged that I should be assailed on this ground. Such a 
course did not appear to him wise or prudent. If not 
aJ>solutely ruinous, it would be more " tenable and safe," 
to risk a battle on the ground of a future retribution. 
To say the least, says Mr. S. this ground " affords us 
the best opportunity of assailing our adversary with suc- 
cess." But why not do this at once, if it can be done? 
The orthodox doctrine of endless misery required this to 
be done at once. My book, written to show that this doc- 
trine was not true, required it to be done at once. Public 
expectation required it, for this is what they expected him 



T'tJTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDEllED. 47 

to do. Why then did he not do this at once") Why let 
his httle fear prevent him '' attempting so much at once?" 
But supposing Mr. S. to prove a future retribution, how 
does the truth of the doctrine of endless misery triumph, if 
it is left for every man to form his own judgment on the 
extent and duration of iti But he. seems inclined to give 
up endless misery, and finds fault with me, p. 25, for 
*^ proving more than is necessary.'' He says "he has 
proved too much;" and this is what has exposed me to 
Mr. S.'s attack. He thinks I am encumbered with my 
victoHes and conquests. Well, have I conquered end- 
less misery, and driven it from all defence by Mr. S. or 
his orthodox friends % If this be true, my end is gained, 
and I had no desire to pursue the war if he had not pro- 
voked it. 

3d. Mr. S. adds, '' That the gjound taken in the ex- 
amination of this '' Inquiry" is that on which a greater 
number of thinking and seribus men can meet, than can 
be expected to come together on any other ground." It 
should seem from this, that it is a matter of more concern 
to Mr. S. to get on to popular ground, than true scrip- 
tural ground. This is a matter of no concern to me ; my 
only object has been, what is scriptural ground? But it is 
difiicult for me to perceive that the principle exhibits any 
* benevolence' towards me, or is likely to be a mean of 
convincing me of my error and show me wherein, I have 
'' misled others." He would accomplish these sooner^ 
by showing a sacred regard to what saith the Scriptures, 
without any concern about what would be most popular. 
Mr. S. is correct in thinking, ''that reasonable and se- 
rious measures must be adopted with me, and that it is 
perfectly useless to turn upon me the artillery of church 
authorities or the thunderbolts of Heaven^ s vengeance. ^^ 
No ; this ammunition, Mr. S. may assure himself, would 
make no impression on me, except to beget a smile at the 
man's folly who used it. I must thank my friend for the 
compliment he pays me, p. 37. It seems a few years 
since I ''was stHctly orthodox." If so, I am more so 
now, for it has been my object all along to approximate 
nearer the Bible in my religious creed. I have also ta- 
ken the advice which he gives me to read over again that 
'•; holy volume." The result of my labours, on the sub- 



4S WR. Sabine's proofs of a 

ject in discussion, will appear in the sequel. I shall al- 
ways be glad of his assistance, and have much cause of 
gratitude to him that he has called my attention again to 
this subject. Mr. S. has been very circumspect in his 
remarks, in regard to endless misery. The cause of this 
seems to be, that he wished to shape his system, to em- 
brace the greatest numbers. Hence he adds, p. 37, " The 
controversy, conducted upon these terms, admits the aux- 
iUary force of all who beiieve in a future retribution, 
whether that future be considered as limited or eternal, 
and by rejecting the phrase etefnal, and substituting /i*- 
ture, all parties, even Mr. B. will agree in the course 
taken in the discussion." 

But Mr. S. presumes too much when he says " even 
Mr. B. will agree in the course taken in the discussion." 
What! I agree to reject "the phrase eternal and sub- 
stitute future punishment. No, by no means; nor will 
the orthodox agree to this? Have they indeed come so 
far over as to reject the word eternal., and substitute the 
viordi future ? If I had really thought so, I might have 
saved myself the labour of writing my book, for it was 
against eternal misery it was written. If all this be true, 
a coalition may soon be expected between the orthodox 
and those whom Mr. S. calls retributionists. We are 
Teally glad to hear this, if we could persuade ourselves 
that it is true. But we thought that Mr. S. p. 24, regret- 
ted that so many of " the reputed orthodox" were willing 
to let " the doctrine of a future retribution fall into disre- 
pute, without, on their part, a suitable effort to maintain 
it." And in the same connexion he expresses his hap- 
piness that so many Universalists " stand forward to vin- 
dicate, and espouse those that vindicate the doctrine of a 
future retribution." It seems, the Universalists are be- 
coming orthodox ; and the orthodox are becoming Uni- 
versalists, and that too of the worst class. But has not 
my friend Mr. S. got put out with his old orthodox friends, 
and here rather misrepresents them. We regret to see 
this. Why did he not blame them, and himself too, for 
lettiDg the doctrine " of endless misery fall into disre- 
pute i^ithout a suitable effort to maintain itV^ This 
is -the orthodox doctrine, and it seems he will not make 
any effort to maintain it, but will let it fall into disrepute, 
jtRt ^s rQuoh a^ he says they do tliat of futtire retribution. 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 49 

In concluding this lecture, Mr. S. informs his readers, 
that he makes no *' compromise^^^ nor offers "wo terms 
of reconciliation?^ to me, while I hold my "present 
ground with no better pretensions." Yet, before he ends 
the paragraph, he sounds the loudest blast of alarm, to 
all, to embark in counteracting the " progress, influence 
and tendency" of my book. I leave him to unravel thi^ 
and other inconsistencies at his leisure. Mr. S.'s sen- 
tence of outlawry will not break my heart. 

LECTURE III. 

Mr. Sabine entitles this discourse, "Retribution threat- 
ened to the wicked, a motive to virtue." Let the ques- 
tion be asked. Retribution, where threatened to the wick- 
ed a motive to virtue? The reader must bear it constant- 
ly in mind, that he must prove, that this retribution is in 
a future state of existance. This must be borne in mind, 
because he not only would have his readers believe, that 
I deny all punishment threatened as a motive to virtue, 
but he palms on his readers, texts which speak indeed of 
punishment, but takes it for granted, that it is to be in- 
iiicted in the world to come. 

Though Mr. S. at the outset, agreed to settle this 
question by an appeal to the Scriptures, yet in his intro- 
ductiom to this discourse, he tries to establish his future 
retribution, 1st, By refering to human governments. 
He says, they have " a near resemblance to the divine 
government," and that they recognise " the principle of 
retributive justice." But we ask, do any human govern- 
ments carry their punishments into a future state of exis- 
tance? He will not say so. What then does he mean to 
establish by all he can reason by analogy from them? 2d. 
He next refers to " courts of a more moral complexion, 
courts of conscience, or sessions of authority in the 
Church." They, "inflict penalties upon the transgres- 
sors according to the rule of a righteous retribution." 
We know a little about the court called sessions in the 
Church of Scotland, but that church, with all her faults, 
never carried her punishments, beyond death. Does Mr, 
S.'s Presbyterian churches in America carry their retri- 
butions into another world? This is news to us. So does 
7 



56 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

his holiness the Pope against the whole Protestant fraterni- 
ty. Mr. S. laughs at the Pope, and he will allow me to 
smile at him. i3d. Mr. S. appeals to the Masonic tribu- 
nal, which he calls a " solemn tribunal ;" and adds, "wo 
to the unfaithful ; he is cast out to the most awful retri- 
bution, to be known amongst us no more for ever." I 
am no Mason, nor shall I ever be one, if their punish- 
ments are carried beyond death. No man can be a con- 
sistant Mason, according to Mr. S. unless he believes in 
endless misery, or at least a temporary punishment after 
death. But we have authority from respectable men, 
and Masons in high orders, to say, that none of their re- 
tributions are carried beyond this life. But what if all 
these three tribunals did this, the Bible must decide what 
is truth on the subject, for all our reasonings from anal- 
ogy can decide nothing. 

Mr. ^. says, pp. 39, 40, '' In all these views of govern- 
ment, a threatening retribution is held out as a motive 
to virtue." A very singular way to prove a future re- 
tribution indeed, to tell us that national governments, 
churqh sessions and masons have temporal punishments 
annexed to their laws, therefore men must be punished 
in another state of existance ! ! But, let us follow Mr. S. 
in his course. In pp. 40, 41, he refers to the state of thiligs 
in France, when all law and justice were trampled in the 
dust ; and that he may carricature me in company, he al- 
ludes to the Hopkinsians, aiid intimates that our systems 
are the same as the French Philosophers of that day in 
principle. He treats the neiv divinity men, my com- 
panions, rather worse than he does me, so that I have no 
great reason to complain. But as there is not even com- 
mon civility in these two pages, we leave them to Mr. 
S.'s own serious reflections. We did think, that the fa- 
mous Maiden Sermon, with some other things, would 
have taught our friend a more excellent way of conduct- 
ing a religious controversy. It is a species of the gross- 
est slander, to identify either my views, or the Hopkin- 
sians, with that of Godwin and others. Do we announce 
a ' political justice' without law, without sanction, with- 
out penalty, without retribution? Mr. S. verily hath had 
his reward for his labours at Maiden. He has found, and 
may yet find, that retributive justice follows doing evil 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED- 51 

even in this world, though it may not pursue him beyond 
the grave. 2 Cor. v, 11, is Mr. S.'s text to this dis- 
course. "Knowing therefore the terrors of the Lord 
we persuade men.'^ Seemingly aware, that his text dic( 
not teach a punishment in another world, he tl^is writes, 
■' Whether this was preaching ' hell-fire or wrath to come' 
it was preaching terror ; and it was urged as a motive to 
a holy life ; by it our apostle persuaded men, and we ini- 
tend to imitate his example." That by the terror of 
the Lordj hell-fire or punishment in a future state was 
meant by the apostle, is the very point Mr. S. had got 
to prove. But, without making the least attempt to do 
this, he proceeds in pp. 42, 43, to make some quotations 
from my book. Is his object in making them to refute 
them? No, his readers may see he makes them, as Usual, 
to substitute the expression future punishment where I 
use hell torments. And why is he so determined upon 
altering my language? Why, reader, Mr. S. could not 
say that hell torment was preached by Adam, Noah, Lot, 
Abraham, &c. to make men holy, and therefore he sub- 
stitutes the expression future punishment in place of it. 
Now, by future punishment, Mr. S. would have his rea- 
ders think that I believe in no punishment at all as a mo- 
tive to holiness, and to conclude that this is the doctrine 
of my book. But Mr, S. has forgot himself, for he has 
allowed, that I hold to punishment in this world at least. 
But his readers should recollect, that by future retrihyL- 
tion or future punishment y Mr. S. means a punishment 
in another world. Now, let him take his choice of the 
orthodox expression which I have used, hell torments^ or, 
his own substitute for it, future punishment^ it avails 
him nothing. Let him only prove, that punishment in a 
future world was preached to make men holy, Vnd he es-^ 
tablishes his point. Establishing this, however, does not 
touch my book. If he will still have hell tq be a place of 
temporary punishment, let him have it, for I do not wish 
to be very fastidious about it, At any rate \ must ex- 
amine his proofs of this. 

As to what Mr. S. says, pp. 42—445 against iny not 
preaching terror as a motive to holiness, little need be 
said. I have denied, and do deny, that any inspired 
writer ever preached endkss hell torments as a motive 



52 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

to holines^^^. Let him prove this to be false if he can. I 
never denied, that te^-ror, or the divine displeasure was 
held forth to men, to deter them from sin and promote 
obedience. Mr. S. aljows this. Can the fear of God's 
displeasure here have no influence on men? and can it 
have no influence even on the righteous, though the rul- 
ing motive of their obedience is love? It should seem 
from Mr. S, that it cannot, unless it be the terror of the 
Lord in a future state. Let him read his Bible a little 
more attentively before he asserts such things again. 

In p. 44 Mr. S. says, that Noah preached future re- 
tribution to promote virtue. Yet this retribution is, 
"' God threatened all flesh with the deluge. ^^ After all, 
then, his future punishment is only a temporal one. Af-. 
ter again and again recurring to the history of Noah, he 
is unable to find any thing in it to support his punishment 
in another world. He cannot either strike out negative 
or positive proof from it, to support his doctrine. Noah 
tvas "moved vs^ith fear," he knew the terror of the 
Lord, but Mr. S.'s honest man after all cannot find that 
his fear was about punishment after death, for he says, 
" Noah, you see, knowing the terror of the Lord was 
persuaded." persuaded to do what? It comes out honest- 
ly from M^. S, he was '' persuaded to prepare the arA:." 
What a pity that it was not said, he was " persuaded to 
flee from hell toi;ments or future retribution." It would 
have been well for him to let the history of Noah alone- 
Was the ark built to preserve him from punishment in a 
future state? 

But Mr. S. tells us his next case is still more to 
the point, "as it meets our inquirer's challenge, not on- 
ly in all its parts, but in the very expression and letter, 
namely, the preaching of hell torments, a motive to vir- 
tue and the preacher is Jesus." Well, the texts Mr. 
S- refers to are Luke xii, 4, 5; and Matt, x, 28; both 
pi which were considered in the Inquiry. But as Mr. 
S. does not give us his views of these texts here, but 
reserves them to a future lecture, we must wait till we 
b^ear them in their place. The use he makes of them 
here is this; " I appeal," says he "to the most common 
understanding, to the understanding of a child, whether 
punishment in Gehenna, be not by our Saviour urged as 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 53 

E motive to virrtue? If this be admitted, and it cannot 
be evaded, then our doctrine is established, and we may 
proceed to illustrate the position for practical use." On 
this, we remark, 

1st, If these texts referred to, did meet my challenge 
^' in all its parts," yea " in the very expression and let- 
tet, namely, the preaching of hell torments," why was 
Mr. S. at so much trouble to alter my book, and substi- 
tute for hell torments, the expressions, future punish- 
ment, future retribution'^ &c. Why could he not, 
let the book stand as I made it, and thus meet it in all 
its parts, yea, in its very expressions and letter? We 
ask again, why did nol Mr. S. quote Math, xxiii, 33, 
and show that my interpretation of the words, '' damna- 
tion of hell," was false and erroneous, and that this text 
met my challenge in all its parts, yea, in its very ex- 
pression and letter? and not to ask him too many ques- 
tions at once. Why did not Mr. S. show the two sec- 
tions of my book false, which state facts, that Gehenna 
was not used by our Lord or his apostles to express a 
place of endless misery? I must put one more; Why 
4id Mr. S. not take some notice of the evidence I ad- 
duced, that the very texts he refers to are in unison with 
these facts, and all the other passages which speak of 
the punishment of Gehenna? 2d. Of what use was it 
for Mr. S. to appeal to the understanding of a child, 
''whether punishment in Gehenna, be not by our Sav- 
iour urged as a motive to virtue ?" A child could tell 
him, Mr. S. we all know this ; but what you have got 
to prove is, that Jesus urged Gehenna torments in an- 
other state of existence as a motive to virtue. This is 
not only what you ought to prove, but even the endless 
duration of them, to answer the book and to redeem 
your pledge from the public. To prove, that Gehenna 
punishment was- urged on the disciples by our Lord as a 
motive to virtue, is just what the " Inquiry" says he 
he did. Your work was to show, that this punishment 
was not temporal, but of eternal existence in a future 
state. Besides, instead of asserting that the inquirer 
labours hard, even to distress, you ought to have refuted 
his arguments. Mr. S. may then see, that his "doc- 
trine is pot established," nor never can be established 



54 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

l)y such a mode of proving it. But allowing that le 
had proved the doctrine of endless hell torments, let us 
see what account he gives of its practical use. He says, 
p. 45, '' And here, first, let us come to some point on 
the character of that doctrine and preaching, so often 
by our Inquirer called the doctrine of hell torments. 
This method of denominating and describing our preach- 
ing, I mean that of those who assert an eternal retribu- 
tion, has in it something to be admitted, and something 
to be rejected. There is, in this description, a part we 
shall admit. A great deal has been written in retire- 
ment, and much more has been proclaimed in the pulpit, 
on the subject of future punishment, than can be justifi- 
ed upon the grounds of scripture and reason. Many 
passages of holy writ have been selected as descriptive 
of future misery, while perhaps they have no allusion 
whatever to a future state. Others, highly figurative, 
have been selected, and the preacher has insisted upon 
the most literal fulfilment of them; his genius too, form- 
ed for the love of metaphor, his passions burning with 
his subject, and his judgment a long way behind, has 
made an awful display of the terrific. But what has 
such a disclosure effected? Why it has perhaps irritated 
and shocked some of the best people in his audience; it 
has gained the applause of some of the weakest, and 
may have established the preacher's character for faith- 
fulness, but as to the wicked, not one of them has been 
^persuaded? to forsake his evil way, and turn unto God; 
so far from it, their understandings have been outrag- 
ed, and their best, not their worst, passions disgusted, 
and so they have -resolved to sin on, being hardened in 
their iniquities, instead of being alarmed, and softened, 
and subdued." The following, among other things, de^ 
serve notice in this account of preaching hell torments. 
1st. He admits that what I have said of such preaching is 
partly true. In an after part of the same paragraph, he 
'' protests against such Gospel preaching ;^^ and adds, 
'^ here we set up our remonstrance, a feeble one, it is 
true, but decided, and declare against such a method of 
calling sinners to repentance. We declare against it in 
terms of reprobation, let it come from whatever quarter 
it may, from the learned or the rude, from the college 



1 FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIPERED. 55 

<M* the camp." We are glad to see Mr. S. so decided 
in condemning this kind of preaching. But he seems to 
f(>rget himself; for in pp. 46, 47, and other places, he 
just does what he here condemns. He selects texts, 
wliich have no reference to a future state, and groups 
them together, to make an awful display of the terrific. 
"Wfe are disposed to ascribe this to the force of an old 
habit, which leads him astray contrary to his judgment. 
We have little doubt, that if he goes on thus condemn- 
ing such preaching, and examines his texts with more 
cai^e and attention, he will soon cure himself of this evil, 
an4 avoid condemning himself in the thing which he al- 
lo^^feth. 2d. It would be difficult for me or any one else to 
givS a worse description of such preaching, than he here 
gives us himself. As to the preachers of hell torments he 
say,^ their judgments are " a long way behind," they select 
" nqany passages of holy writ," which they think " descrip- 
tive of future misery," which " have no allusion whatever 
to atfuture state." Besides, " highly figurative" passages 
are f selected, and the preacher has insisted upon the 
most literal fulfilment of them;" and his judgment being 
a long way behind, and *'his passions burning with his 
subject," he " has made an awful display of the terrific." 
As to the practical effects of such preaching, I should, 
hardly venture to give such a bad account of it as he 
does. It has *' irritated and shocked some of the best 
people in his audience; it has gained the applause of 
somb of the weakest, and may have established the 
preacher's character for faithfulness, but as to the wick- 
ed, aot one of them has been ^persuadedP to forsake 
his ([vil way, and turn unto God; so far from it, their 
undcjrstandings have been outraged, and their best, not 
theiij worst, passions disgusted, and so they have resolv- 
ed to sin on, being hardened in their iniquities, instead 
of being alarmed, and softened, and subdued." Such arc 
the pfractical effects of terrific preaching, as given us un - . 
der Mr. Sabine's own hand and seal. From his intimate 
and extensive knowledge of orthodox preaching, much 
more dependance may be placed on this account, than 
any thing I could say about it. But we think he ought 
to have been more cautious himself, about awful displays 
of the terrific, lest it should only produe,e similar effects. 



o6 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

And in drawing this portrait of orthodox preachers, t^ 
ought to have reflected, that he was also taking his ownn 
likeness. We question, if any of his brethren ever 
made an attempt at the terrific, from any passages, leav- 
ing their jugments farther behind them than he does in 
some parts of his discourses. 3d. But it seems a para- 
dox to us, how any man can preach terror, without sc>me' 
display of the terrific: And how can endless misery^ or 
even Mr. S.'s retribution in a future state he preach- 
ed, without an aivful display of the terrific? Perhaps 
he can explain this. But we aver, that if either of these 
-doctrines be true, no man can easily give too awfiil a- 
display of the terrific. We contend, that the preachers 
whom Mr. S. condemns, are the most honest and faithful, 
and act most consistent with their own professed ci'eed. 
Their profession and practice agree; but Mr. S. /^ives 
us awful displays of the terrific, yet tells us it is wrongs 
and is attended with very bad consequences. Like 
causes produce like effects, he will allow. But, not with- 
standing all that Mr. S. has said against this kind of 
preaching, his own system requires him to defertd it. 
Accordingly he says, p. 46, that the apostles, and partic- 
ularly Paul, preached terror, '' Knowing the terror of 
the Lord, he persuaded men.'' And how? Wh^^, by 
setting before them the terrors of retributive justice; 
and to render this retribution the more to be dre aded, 
he places the despised and neglected Jesus, once a Sa- 
viour, upont he tribunal, (verse 10.) "We must all ap- 
pear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everj on& 
may receive the things done in his body, accordiiag to 
that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." But 
we ask him, does the apostle sny, he preached th b ter- 
ror of the Lord in a future state, or, that this judj^ment 
seat of Christ w^as in another world? We can show the 
contrary, but we wish Mr. S. to prove his own dodtrine. 
Rom. ii, 5, 6, he quotes thus, '' In the day of wratli, and 
retribution of the righteous judgment of God, God will 
render to every man according to his deeds.'' This text 
he passes without any remark. When he attempts to 
show us, how it proves his future punishment in another 
world, I am prepared to prove it has no relation to such 
a doctrine. Gal. vi, 7, 8, is thus quoted by him^ "•- Be 






FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 57 

not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man 
soweth that shall he also reap; for he that soweth to his 
flesh shall reap corruption." But as the text does not 
say this corruption is to be reaped in a future state of 
existence, it is nothing to th,e purpose, for this is the 
precise point all his texts should prove. Mr. S. seems 
determined to forget this. John, v, 28, 29, is thus quot- 
ed, * ■ The wicked shall be raised to the resurrection of 
damnation." But Mr. S. forgot to comment on this 
text, or to show that the resurrection to which our Lord 
referred, was a literal resurrection. The preceding con- 
text shows it was not, and until he shows that it ig, 
which would be contrary to the scope of the whole con- 
text, it is nothing to his purpose. Matt, xxv, 46, is 
thus quoted and commented on. " The wicked shall go 
away into everlasting punishment, that is on the lowest 
estimation, into punishment in a future state." This is 
one of the strongest proof texts in favour of endless mis- 
ery. But Mr. S. is willing to reduce it, to suit his doc- 
trine of future retribution. But if he will only study a 
httle more attentively Matt, xxivth aijd xxvth in conne;s- 
ion, he may see, that it has no reference to either his 
retribution or endless misery. But as this is one of t,h^ 
passages, which I have considered at length, in the ii;i- 
quiry into the words aion and aioneon^ referred to in 
my book, 1 forbear introducing what I have to say of it 
here. Isa. iii, 11 is correctly quoted, but without giving 
book, chapter, or verse. " Wo unto the wicked, it 
shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hand^ shall 
be given him." But as the passage does not say the 
reward of his hands is to be given him in a future state, 
Mr. S. flight just as well have quoted the words, " An 
homer is the tenth part of an ephali." Jude 14, is thus 
quoted: *' Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied of 
these things." If Mr. S. had even quoted the whole of 
this text, it is not to his purpose, for it does not say a 
word about punishment in another world. 

But he goes on, " Noah preached righteousijess, and 
warned of these things. And were not all these proph*' 
esyings and preaching a declaration of the doctrine of 
future retribution, and was not all this to warn and to 
persuade men?" We have said enough £^lready about 
8 



^ AfK. SABINE'S J^ROdFS OP A 

Noaii's preaching. All the preachings and prophesyingSy 
to which our friend has yet referred, say not a word 
about punishment in another «tate of existence. They 
are warnings and persuasions to men, but say nothing 
about his future retribution. But what he builds up 
with the one hand, he pulls down with the other, for he 
immediately adds, *' in all these discourses and alarms I 
do not see a word about hell in any form.'' Very well 
said; but he ocight to have added, " In all these dis- 
courses and alarms I do not see a word about my future 
retribution in any form." But how comes it to pass 
that he does find his retribution in them, and contends, 
as we shall gee afterwards, for hell punishment for the 
disembodied spirit, yea, for hell, or geheiina punishment 
for both spul and body. But Mr. S. adds, " The wick- 
ed are told in plain terms, terms plaiiier than Hell can 
express, that they " shall in no case ^^nter into the king- 
dom of heaven. That there shall iri no wise enter into 
it, any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh 
abomination or maketh a lie." He^ connects two texti^ 
here together, which the contexts of both show, that the 
use he makes of them, is unwarrantable and unscriptur'- 
al. We are sorry to see such quotations, and associa- 
tions of texts, made by him, and especially in proof of 
such a point as the one in question. They injure his 
own cause, for even admitting them justly quoted, they 
do not say a word about his future punishment. Allow- 
%ig them to exclude from heaven, they sesid none to hell, 
as Mr. S. would have his readers beheve. All Mr. S.'s 
texts fall short of proving punishment in a future state. 
If he has any better, we hope he will produce them. 

From pp. 47 — 50, Mr. S. proceeds to show that sin 
is a great evil, and says, " That God takes cognizance 
of sin^y for the express purpose of giving judgment upon 
it." True, but cannot God bring good out of this evil? 
It Should seem, he is determined to make God bring a 
temporary, if not an endless punishment out of it to a 
great part of his creatures. We agree with him, that 
** Nothing is more clearly laid down in scripture than 
this," that God will punish sin; but is it at all to the 
purpose, to quote texts proving that God will do this in 
the present world, when texts ought to be produced, 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CQNSIDEREI^. 69 

proving that he will do this in the world to come. That 
Jlr. S.'s texts are of this description has been shown 
above, and the texts he here produces, I shall pro- 
ceed to examine. Eccl. xii, 14, is the first he quotes. 
*^' God shall bring every work into judgment, with ev- 
ery secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be 
evil." But this text neither says nor insinuates, that 
God will bring every work into judgment in a future 
state of existence. What is to come of Mr. S. if this 
be true? EccL xi, 9^ is next quoted. '' God will bring 
thee into judgment.'' The same remark applies here as 
in the last text Mr. S. says^^ ^' the Bible is full of 
this.'' Yes, the Bible is full of thig, but if it is not full 
of texts proving his punishment in another world, it is 
just full of that, which he ought to hq,ve known better 
than to quote. Mai. iii, 5, is next produced in proof 
that the Bible is full of this. *' And I will come near 
to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against 
the sorcerers, aiid against the adulterers, and against 
false swearers, and against those that oppress the hire>- 
ling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and 
that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not 
jne, saith the J^ord of hosts." How Mr. S. could quote 
such texts, to prove punishment in another state of exist- 
ence, is to me strange, for neither in the texts, nor their 
contexts, is a v^ord said about a future state. I could 
prove the contrary from them, and when he produces his 
proofs, I am ready to meet hiip with mine in reply. The 
Bible furnishes texts such as these by the hundred, with- 
out much trouble in finding them, but when found, they 
are only as many cyphers to prove Mr. 3's position. 
We would caution Mr. S. against using such texts, for 
they are only calculated to bring his doctrine into suspi- 
cion. A weak defence is worse than none. 

But Mr. S. adds, p. 49, '' Qur Saviour is perpetually 
turning the attention of his hearers to this tribunal: ' 1 
say unto you. That every idle word which men shall 
speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of 
judgment.' And again, ' The nien of Nineveh shalL 
rise up in the judgment with this genera,tion and con- 
demn it. The queen of the south shall rise up in the 
judgment with this generation, ^d »hall condemn it * 



60 MR. Sabine's proofs ot a 

All the apostleg, whose sayings and writings are preserv- 
ed, refer to this judgment, in a great variety of language 
and doctrine; Paul, ' The judgment seat of Christ;' Pe- 
ter, ' The day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly 
men.' John saw in vision ' The dead, small and great, 
stand before God; and the hooks were opened; and they 
were judged every man according to their works.' This 
is a scripture view of the judgment seat; let us now see 
how this tribunal is adapted to man's state and charac- 
ter." Here Mr. S. gives us a j;iumber of partially 
quoted texts, about the judgment] and the day of judg- 
ment, without reference to book, chapter, or verse, 
where they may be found. As these texts which speak 
of the judgment, and the day of judgment, form the 
foundation of his future retribution, as the texts which 
speak of hell do that of endless misery, they deserve a 
serious and candid consideration. We then drop the 
discussion with Mr. S. for a moment, and proceed to 
consider all the texts in the Bible where the expression, 
the day of judgment, occurs. We shall take them up 
in the order they are found in the New Testament. 
The first place then, where the expression, the day of 
judgment occurs is. Matt, x, 15, " Verily I say unto 
you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom 
and Gamorrah in the day of judgment {en hemera krise- • 
os) than for that city." Mark vi, 11, is the parallel 
text, which I need not transcribe. On these passages 
let it be remarked, 

1st. That these words were addressed by our Lord to 
the twelve apostles when he commissioned them to 
preach and to work miracles in his name. It is plainly 
supposed, that some of the cities to which they might go 
to preach and wTjrk miracles, would not receive them. 
In this case, when they departed they were to shake off 
the dust of their feet against them, verse 14. The min- 
istry of the apostles, during our Lord's life, let it be 
remembered, was exclusively confined to the Jews. 
2d. The punishment of the city which did not receive 
them, was to be more severe in the day of judgment, 
than that which befel Sodom and Gomorrah, when God 
destroyed them. I beg it to be noticed here, that the 
punifhment of the cities pf the plain, is iiot here con 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 6l 

trasted with the punishment of all the wicked, but only 
with that city, which rejected the ministry of the apos- 
tles. But all know that this is generalized and applied 
to all the wicked at the day of judgment. 3. To what 
period then is a reference made by the phrase, " The day 
of judgment?'' In answer to this let it be observed, 
that the Greek phrase, en kemera kriseos, is simply a 
day of judgment^ and not as in our common version, 
the day of judgment. This we think will not be contro- 
verted. This remark applies to all the passages in which 
this phrase occurs. The Greek expression, is uniformly 
the same in all the texts, with only one exception, which 
will be noticed in its place. Precisely the same expres- 
sion is once used in the Greek version of the Seventy, 
Prov. vi, 34, '' For jealousy is the rage of a man; there- 
fore he will not spare in the day of vengeance, [en he- 
mera kriseos.) But who ever supposed, that this ex- 
pression referred to a day of general judgment at the 
end of this world, and that a jealous man would not 
spare when it arrived. Its meaning here needs no com- 
ment. I may just notice, that the same word rendered 
judgment in the passages in the New Testament, is in 
this place translated vengeance. The question then is, 
what day of judgment did our Lord refer to? It will be 
answered, the day of judgment at the end of this world. 
But I ask, where is the proof of this? The Greek 
phrase forbids such an interpretation. The same ex- 
pression in the Seventy forbids it: The context of the 
passage forbids it: The contrast between the cities, who 
rejected the apostles, and the cities of the plain forbid 
it: And nothing, that I can perceive, is in its favour, 
but the assumed popular s^ense w^hich people have attach- 
ed to this expression. A day of judgment was coming 
01^ the Jewish nation. The day of vengeance when all 
things which were written were fulfilled. A day, when 
^11 the righteous blood shed upon the earth came on that 
generation. A day of vengeance or judgment, the like 
had never been, nor again shall be; and unless the 
Lord had shortened it, no flesh could have been saved. 
A day in which it was more tolerable for Sodom and 
Gomorrah than for the city that rejected the apostles. 
As Jerusalem, th^eir capital city, was chief in their rejec- 



62 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

tion of Christ and those whom he sent, so here his vial's 
of vengeance were chiefly poured out. This view of the 
subject is then in agreement with the fact. Besides, it 
is one temporal judgment contrasted with another. But 
the common view of the expression, the day of judgment^ 
is contrasting a temporal punishment with an eternal one, 
and one in this world with one in the world to come. 
We are aware of the objection likely to be made here ; 
*' It is not said, it was more tolerable for Sodom and 
Gomorrah, but it shall he more tolerable for Sodom and 
Gomorrah in the day of judgment, referring to a future 
punishment yet to be suffered." To save time and room 
we refer to the next passage, with others, for an answer 
to this objection. 

Matt, xi, 20—25, is the next passage. '' Then bcr 
gan he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty 
works were done,^ because they repented not. Wo un- 
to thee, Chorazin ! woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the 
mighty works which were done in you had been done in 
Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in 
sackcloth and ashes, But I say unto you, it shall be. 
more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, 
{en hemera kriseos) than for you. And thou, Capernaum, 
which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to 
hell : for if the mighty works, which have been done m^ 
thee, had been done in Sodom, it would h^ve remained 
until this day. But I say unto you, that it shall be more 
tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, 
{en hemera kriseos) than for thee." All will perceive, 
that the remarks on the last passage equally apply here. 
The Greek phrase is the same. CJiorazin, Bethsaida, 
and Capernaum, cities highly favoured with our Lord's 
preaching and miracles, are upbraided with their unbelief 
and rejection of him. Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, are 
liere contrasted with those cities. The cefntrast as in the 
last text, is not between the punishment of Tyre, Sidon, 
and Sodom at the day of judgment, and all wicked men^ 
but, between those cities and the cities which had been 
favoured with our Lord's ministry. The punishment, as 
in the former text, was to be more tolerable for the former 
than for the latter. As the spiritual advantages had been 
greater, the punishment wQul4 be more severe. The 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 63^ 

same advantages would have produced repentance in the 
people, and saved Tyre^ Sidon, and Sodom from the 
judgment of God which came Upon them. The passage 
contains a prediction of what would be the fate of the 
cities which saw his mighty works but repented not, at a 
day of judgment when it came upon them. What this 
day of judgment is we have seen from the last passage, 
find need not be again repeated. It is very evident from 
the context of both passages, that our Lord's discourse 
had a particular reference to the Jewish nation, and to 
those cities in which the gospel of the kingdom was 
preached and miracles performed, but were both rejected 
by the people. The objection stated on the last passage 
bears equally against the one before us which I shall now 
attempt to consider. It is this, "It is not said^ it was 
more tolerable fOr Sodom, &c. but it shall be more tole- 
rable for Sodom and Gamorrah in the day of judgment." 
This objection, together with the definite article,, has led 
people to conclude, that the day of judgment referred to 
the end of this world. In answer to it I would observCj, 
1st, That this objection arises from overlooking the 
explanation which our Lord gives of his own meaning in 
the passage. In yerses 22 and 24, he says, it shall Bq 
more tolerable for Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, in a day of 
judgement, than for Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Caperna- 
um ; but he explains what he means in verse 23, which 
intervens betwixt these two verses. " And thou Caper- 
naum, which art exalted unto heaven, shall be brought 
down to hell : for if the mighty works which have been 
done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have 
remained unil this day.^^ That our Lord was not 
speaking of a punishment to the Sodomites at a day of 
future judgment, but of the past judgment inflicted on 
thein, seems evident from the last part of this verse, for 
it is said, Sodom " would have remained until this day,^^ 
had the same mighty works been done in it which had been 
done in those other cities. 2d. This objection implies 
that Tyre, Sidon, Sodom and other cities have not yet 
been sufficiently judged ; but are again to be brought to 
trial at a day of general judgment at the end of this 
world. But is it not also beheved that all the wicked 
inhabitants of these cities were judged at deaths and their 



64* ^ MR. Sabine's proofs op a 

fate decided to hell torments for ever? If this be true^ 
why judge them again ? What reasons can be given for 
a second judgment, or what valuable end can be served 
by it? 3d. But this objection proceeds on the principle, 
that bodies politic, of cities are to be judged at a day of 
general judgment at the end of this world. But Mr. 
S. denies, that this can be the case. He says p. 33, 
'' punishment may be inflicted on an individual for his 
sins in a future state; on a people or a nation it cannot 
be so inflicted ; the punishment must be inflicted while 
their national character exists ; in a future state nations 
or bodies politic cannot be the subjects of retribution." 
But all must see, that in the above passages, cities, of 
bodies politic, are spoken of as the subjects of the judg- 
ment mentioned. According then to Mr. S.'s own ac- 
count, the judgment our Lord refers to must be in this 
world, a temporal punishment for sins committed by these 
cities, or as bodies politic. 4th. But observe, that in the 
above passages, the people are not said to be punished at 
ail, either as individuals or as bodies politic. It is only 
said, " it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom 
in a day of judgment.'' And speaking of the people of 
Tyre and Sidon it is said, verse 21, ''they would have 
repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes, had they enjoy- 
ed the same advantages as Chorazin and Bethsaida. It 
would not have been correct, to have s^id of Tyre and 
Sidon, as of Sodom, that these cities "would have re- 
mained until this day," for the sites of those cities were 
not, like that of Sodom, destroyed. 5th. In those passa- 
ges^ not a word is said, that this day of judgement is to be 
at the end of this material world, or, that at this day, indi- 
viduals or bodies politic, are to be brought up to the bar 
of God and judged a second time. Such ideas have no 
foundation in the p^iSsages, but are additions made to 
them by men in support of a preconceived system. As 
the sin of adding to the Bible, is equal to taking any 
thing from it, let us lay aside our preconceived opinions, 
and impartially examine what is the will of God in every 
part of it. The more critically, and carefully such pas^ 
^ages are considered, we are persuaded the common opin- 
ion of a day of judgment must be given up as taught in 
them. The texts, their contexts, ^nd all the circumst;ances 



FUTURE RJITRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 65 

mentioned forbid it ; and when these things are consider- 
ed, the above objection has no weight against the view 
which we have advanced. 

Matt, xii, 36, is the next passage ; " But I say unto 
you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall 
give account thereof in the day of judgment." {En he- 
msra kriseos.) On this passage let it be noticed, 1st, 
That \'ihe day of judgmenf^ mentioned, is the same 
as judgmsnt, and the judgvient spoken of, verses 41, 
42. '' The men of Neneveh shall rise in judgment with 
this generation, and shall condemn it, because they re^ 
pented at the preaching of Jonas ; and behold, a greater 
than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise 
up in the judgment with this generation, and shall con- 
demn it ; for she came from the uttermost parts of the 
e^rth to hear the wisdom of Solomon ; and behold, a 
greater than Solomon is here." Luke xi, 31, 32, is the. 
parallel passage, which, to save room, I forbear trans- 
cribing. 

It is easily seen, that Mr. S. in the above quotation, 
considers all these expressions as referring to the same 
judgment day. Indeed this is allowed by all orthodox 
people, so that tlxere is no room left for debate. One 
judgment day they conceive is referred to, and this is 
to be a day of univers^al judgment at the end of this 
world. No one can question, that " the day of judg- 
ment" verse 36, "judgment" verse 41, and "the judg- 
ment" verse 42, all refer to the same time and the same 
punishment. The only question to be settled is — is this 
a correct view of the passage? To show that any, or all 
these expressions refer to a different time and punishment, 
overturns the whole fabric which has been built for ages 
on the expression " the day of judgment." That this 
expression, referred to the day of judgment, or vengeance 
coming on the Jewish nation, we have in part seen from 
the preceding texts. This is still more apparent from 
this passage, for observe, 2d, What our Lord says in the 
verses above quoted. He does not say that the men of 
Nineveh and the queen of the south, shall rise up in 
the judgment, or the day of judgment, with the wfiole 
world or all the wicked. No: They shall only rise up 
in the judgment, he says, with this generation) I3iaroely> 
9 



66 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

the generation of Jews then Hving, by whom our Lord's 
ministry an4 miracles were rejected. This we think 
is indisputable, and it shows, that by such expres- 
sions our Lord did not mean a day of general judgment 
at the end of time, but a day of judgment coming on that 
generation of the Jews. 3d. But in this passage, we 
have a more full and conclusive answer to the objection 
mentioned in the last text. There it was said, it shall 
be more tolerable for Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, at the 
day of judgment. Now notice, that in this text it is said, 
" The men of Neneveh shall rise in judgment ;" And 
"the queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment 
with this generation." It is certainly as easy to perceive, 
how it should be more tolerable fof such cities when a 
judgment day came on the Jewish nation, as how the 
Ninevites and queen of the south, should rise up at this 
day and condemn the Jews for their rejection of the Sa- 
viour. How did they rise up and condemn them? Sure- 
ly by the history of their conduct recorded in the Old Tes- 
tament, and not by a literal rising up in the judgment. 
So the history of Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon showed, that 
it was more tolerable for those cities, than for the Jews 
when the day of God's judgment or vengeance came on 
them, as it did on that generation. 

Luke x, 12, 13, 14, is next in order. " But I say unto 
you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sod- 
am than for that city. Wo unto thee, Chorazin ! We 
unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works had been 
done in Tyre and Sidon which have been done in you, 
they had a great while ago repented sitting in sackcloth 
and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and 
Sidon at the judgment than for you !" Let it be noticed 
on this passage, that though the Greek phrase is not en 
hemera kriseos, a day of judgment, as in the preceding 
texts, but en te krisei, at the judgment, yet all will al- 
low, that the same judgment is referred to. Farther ; 
let it be noticed, that what is called '' the day of judg- 
ment in the preceding passages, and ''the judgment," 
verse 14 of this, is in verse 12 called "that day." Now 
nothing can be more certain, that the day of judgment 
which came on the Jews at the destruction of their city 
and temple, is expressly called " that day" in various pas- 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 67 

sages of the New Testament. See, among others I 
might quote, the following ; Matt, xxiv, 36 ; Luke xxi, 
34 ; Matt, vii, 22. Again notice, that what is said in 
this passage, was spoken by our Lord when he sent out 
the seventy disciples, and is similar to that spoken to the 
twelve in the texts already considered. It contains our 
Lord's predictions, or declarations, concerning those cit- 
ies which should reject them as the heralds of the king- 
dom of God. " It shall be more tolerable in that day 
for Sodom, and more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the 
judgment,^ ^ than for the cities which refused their mes- 
sage. I may add, that the sense our Lord attached to 
the words, "«/ shall be more tolerable," is explained, 
verse 13, in the same way as already noticed in the pre- 
ceding passages, and need not be here repeated. Here, 
as there, our Lord was predicting that when a day of 
punishment came on those cities, which rejected the min- 
istry of the seventy, it would be more severe than the 
punishment which came on Tyre, Sidon and Sodom. 

Such then are all the passages in the four Gospels 
where this expression, {en hemera kriseos) the day of 
judgment, occurs. Before entering on the texts where 
it is found in the epistles, we shall submit for considera- 
tion the following observations. 

1st. It occurs just five times, and the Greek expres- 
sion is uniformly the same, not the but a day of judg- 
ment. Few persons would have thought of a day of 
general judgment at the end of this world, if the indefi-^ 
nite instead of the definite article h?id been used in th^e 
English version. It has also been seen from the above 
texts, that the day of judgment, the judgment, and that 
day, all refer to one and the same thing. 

2d. It is easily seen from all the above texts that our 
Lord was the speaker and that he addressed himself to 
Jews. Not only so, but all the above te^ts with their 
contexts and the circumstances connected with this ex- 
pression, show that it had a particular reference to a day 
of judgment or vengeance coming on that generation of 
the Jews. A day of judgment did come on them which 
exceeded God's judgments on Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, 
as is seen from Matt. 24th, Luke 21st and BJark 13th, 
aud is. confirmed by Josephus their historian. 



68 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

3d. I do not find that the apostles in preaching to the^ 
Gentiles, speak as our Lord did of the day of judgment. 
In preaching at Corinth, Athens, Ephesus, or any other 
Gentile city, we never find them say as our Lord did, 
that it should he more tolerable for Tyre, Sidon, or So- 
dom, than for them if they did not receive their message. 
No ; nor do we find them in preaching to the multitude, 
or in speaking to individuals, give descriptions of, or 
warnings about a general judgment day at the end of time, 
as is common with preachers in our day. Does not this 
confirm the views which have been stated in the above 
passages. 

4th. Neither do we find the apostles in their epistles 
to the churches among the Gentiles speak of the day of 
judgment as our Lord did in the passages which have 
been considered. To whomsoever the epistles were ad- 
dressed, Peter and John are the only writers who make 
mention of the day of judgment, as our Lord did. We 
shall presently see, that the passages in their epistles 
strongly confirm the views we have advanced about this 
day of judgment. 

2 Peter ii, 9, is the first, *' The Lord knoweth how 
to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve 
the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished. 
[eishemeran kriseos koladzomenous.) Here, as in the 
preceding texts, it is a day of judgment^ and not the 
day of judgment. This is perhaps the most plausible 
passage in the Bible, in favour of a day of general judg- 
ment, and ought to be candidly considered. Though we 
are chiefly concerned with the last part of the passage, 
yet to understand this, it is necessai-y to pay some atten- 
tion to the first. " The Lord knoweth how to deliver 
the godly out of temptations." What persons then had 
Peter in view by the term " godly?" It is evident from 
verses 5, 8, that he had godly Noah and Lot in his eye; 
and also the godly persons to whom he was writing. Let 
us also ask what their temptations were to which he re-r 
fers? The word temptation is often used for trial or put- 
ting a person to the test. Noah was put to the trial, he 
had great temptations among the antediluvians. The 
same was the case with Lot among the Sodomites. See 
the context, and the history of those men in the book pf 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSII>ERED. 6^ 

Genesis. But it is declared here, '' The Lordknoweth 
how to dehver the godly out of temptations." The 
JLofd knew how to deliver Noah out of his temptations 
or trials^ by the ark which saved him, while the flood 
came in on the world of the ungodly. He also knew 
how to deliver Lot out of his temptations, by the angels 
whom he sent to Sodom; for this purpose, see the histo- 
ry of those events, and compare verses 5, 6, 7, of the 
context. Peter brought the history of those persons to 
view far the purpose of encouraging those to whom he 
wrote, under their trials. The Lord also knew how to 
deliver them as he had done righteous Noah and Lot. 
Let us now attend to the second part of this passage ; 
*' And to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to 
be punished.", The term '•' unjust" here, is opposed to 
4he word "godly" in the first. As by it godly Noah 
and Lot were referred to, so the unjust refers to the 
wicked antediluvians and Sodomites, from whom their 
trials or temptations arose. See the context, and the his- 
tory above referred to. Peter also had in view the un- 
just, from whom the persons were sufFering to whom he 
was writing. The grand question then to be settled is, 
What day of judgment did Peter refer to, and to which 
he says the unjust were reserved to be punished? The 
common opinion is, " a day of general judgment at the 
end of this world." But in opposition to this view of 
the passage, let it be recollected, that the Greek phrase 
is not the but a day of judgment. Besides, the common 
usage of this expression, in the texts considered above, 
is opposed to such an interpretation. Besides, it is con- 
trary to the use of this phrase in the Seventy version, 
as noticed above, from Prov. vi, 34i. Peter heard our 
Lord make use of the expression, the day of judgment^ 
and applied it to the day of God's vengeance coming on 
the Jewish nation. The presumption then is, that he 
used it in the same sense as the Saviour did, in all the 
pseceding passages. The proof lies with those who as- 
sert that Peter here meant a day of general judgment. 
But I shall proceed to show, from this text and its con- 
text, that Peter referred to the same period, and the 
same punishment, as our Ldrd did, by the expression 
^' the day of judgment." Let it be then observed, that 



70 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

a day of judgment or vengeance^ came on the antedilu- 
vians, when the flood took them all away. Also on the 
Sodomites, when the Lord destroyed them with fire from 
heaven. The Lord knew how to reserve those unjust 
persons unto a day of judgment to be punished. But it 
may be asked, is this all the day of judgment Peter re- 
fers to? I answer no; for he had some design in intro- 
ducing Noah and Lot as examples of God's delivering 
the godly out of temptations; and he also had some de- 
sign in saying, that the Lord knew how to reserve the 
unjust to a day of judgment to be punished as he did 
the antediluvians and Sodomites. What then was Pe- 
ter's design, in introducing this to the persons to whom 
he wrote this epistle? To ascertain this, let it be notic- 
ed, 1st, That the persons to whom Peter wrote, v/ere 
enduring trials or temptations similar to those of Noah 
and Lot, whom he introduces in the context. The 
whole epistle shows this. He introduced this for the 
purpose of supporting their minds under these trials; the 
Lord knew how to deliver those two righteous men out 
of their temptations, and he knew also how to deliver 
them out of theirs. 2d. As the Lord knew how to re- 
serve the unjust, from whom Noah and Lot suffered, to 
a day of judgment to be punished, so he also knew how 
to reserve the persons from whom they, as Christians, 
were suffering, to a day of judgment to be punished. 
The persons, from whom their temptations or trials 
came, were chiefly the unbelieving persecuting Jews, as 
the whole New Testament abundantly shows. The 
context of the» passage confirms this, for Peter, after 
saying that the Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust 
unto a day of judgment to be punished, immediately adds, 
'' Chiefly those that walk after the flesh in the lust of 
uncleanness, and despise government : presumptuous are 
they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dig- 
nities." The apostle proceeds to the end of the chap- 
ter, in giving an account of their wicked character and 
conduct, w^iich all may examine. Now if Peter meant 
by the unjust, all wicked men in verse 9, as reserved to 
a day of general judgment, why say, verse 10, but 
" chiefly them that walk after the flesh?" &c. Why 
any chiefly m such a case? If we look at the preceding 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 



71 



context, the character of the persons is thus described : 
They were to bring in damnable heresies, verse 1, and 
they were the many who should follow their pernicious 
ways, verse 2. What day of judgment to those men, 
was thtn meant by Peter, verse 9 ? That he did not 
refer to a day of general judgment at the end of time, 
but to the day of God's vengeance on the Jews, I shall 
attempt to prove from the following considerations: 1st. 
Peter speaks of this day of judgment as near. The 
persons spoken of in the context, were to bring upon 
themselves " swift destruction." Their judgment ling- 
ered not, and their damnation slumbered not; see verses 
1—4. But could this be true, if the day of judgment 
to them referred to the end of the material world? Two 
thousand years have nearly passed away already, and 
how long yet to the end of this world no man can cer- 
tainly say. We are aware, that many Christian writers 
have admitted, that the apostles and first Christians 
thought that the day of judgment was to happen during 
their lifetime. This admission, has afforded Gibbon and 
other infidel writers, an unanswerable argument against 
Christianity. The fact proves, that they were mistaken, 
and if mistaken in this very important article, what cred- 
it can be given to any thing which they have said. It 
in short destroys their whole testimony. But admitting, 
that by the day of judgment, the day of God's vengeance 
on the Jews was meant, this objection is entirely remov- 
ed, the credit of the inspired writers is establislied, and 
Christianity is recommended to infidels as a revelation 
from Heaven. I consider it to be some evidence, that 
my views of the day of judgment are correct, that they 
fully and fairly remove this objection out of the way of 
infidels. This remark, applies to other passages in the 
New Testament, against which the same objection has 
been urged. 

It will never do here, to say, that the day of man's 
death is the day of judgment, and the commencement of 
his future punishment. No, for it is contended, that the 
day of judgment in this text, is to be at the end of this 
material system. If so, the text is express in declaring, 
that the unjust are reserved to this day to be punished. 
To suit the common belief, Peter ought to have said, 



72 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

'' The unjust are punished until the day of judgment, 
and are to be more severely, yea, eternally punished after 
this." Nothing can be plainer, than that the punishnaent 
here mentioned, commences at the day of judgment, 
whatever day that may be. 

2d, The persons to be punished at the day of judg- 
ment here mentioned, and the nature of their punish- 
ment, point to the day of God's vengeance on the Jew^s, 
and not to a day of general judgment at the end of this 
material vv^orld. Let it be noticed that Peter does not 
use language expressive of a day of general judgment. 
He does not say the Lord knoweth how to reserve all 
the unjust unto a day of judgment to be punished. Nor 
does the text, or the context say, that this day of judg- 
ment was to be at the end of this world. Nothing lika 
this is intimated. Peter, from the scope of the context, 
is evidently speaking of persons from whom Christians 
in his day were enduring trials or temptations, and he 
informs them for their consolation, that the Lord knew 
how to delivee them out of their "temptations, and to re- 
serve the unjust from whom they were suffering to a day 
of judgment to be punished. Now, those Christians to 
whom Peter wrote, knew from what our Lord had said, 
Matt. 24ith and other sources, that a day of awful ven- 
geance was coming on the unbelieving persecuting Jews 
during that generation. It was expected, and looked 
for with earnest anticipation, as the period when their 
redemption should draw nigh, see Matt. 24, &.c. Some 
of them no doubt had heard our Lord call this very day, 
'' the day of judgment." Peter's language was not new 
to them. Indeed, in no other sense could they under- 
stand it, for by no sacred writer had this expression been 
used in the sense in which it -is now used among us. 

But if we advert to the nature of the punishment 
threatened, the above observations are confirmed. The 
verb kolazo, rendered to be punished in this passage 
says Parkhurst, signifies '' to restrain." He adds, '' this 
derivation is confirmed by observing, that the Greek 
kolazOj is sometimes applied by the profane writers in 
the sense of restraining or repressing^ as may be seen 
in Scapula." This word occurs only here and in Acts 
iv, 21, 0^ the New Testament, where it is rendered jpitw- 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 73 

ished, and is evidently used in the sense oi^ repressing or 
i^estraining^ which confirms what Parkhurst has stated. 
But let us advert to the context of this passage, atid see 
if we can learn any thing as to the nature of the punish- 
ment at this day of judgement. It must be allowed, for 
it cannot be controverted, that Peter says nothing about 
sending the u^ijust to hell, to be punished at the day of 
judgment mentioned. No pathetic descriptions are given 
by him here oi* the mode of trial at this day, and the end- 
less misery in which it results, as is often done by preach- 
ers in our day. The context as we have seen, refers to 
a day of judgment, w^hich came on the old world, and 
also on the cities of the plain. Now, is there not some- 
thing incongruous, and unscriptural, to allude to such 
punishments of a temporal nature, if he meant to teach 
a day of judgment at the end of this world, and endless 
punishment in a future state of existence ? No other sa- 
cred writer, ever availed himself of such temporal judg- 
ments, to set forth such a day, or such a punishment. 
But admitting, that Peter here, by the day of judgment, 
refers to the day of God's temporal vengeance on the 
Jews, and their punishment at this day, he only does 
what our Lord did before him. Thus in Matt, xxiv, 
37 — 40, and Luke xvii, 26 — 37, our Lord avails himself 
of the flood on the old world, and the destruction of So- 
dom by fire from heaven, to illustrate the temporal ca- 
lamities coming on the nation of the Jews during that 
generation. In this, Peter, only imitates our Lord, and 
this being the way in which our Lord improved those 
past judgments on men, is no small corroboration of the 
views I have advanced relative to the day of judgment. 

But further ; at verse 12, Peter says, " but these, as 
natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed, 
speak evil of the things that they understand not ; and 
shall utterly perish in their own corruption. '^ All tliis 
is in perfect agreement with the character of the unbe- 
lieving wicked Jews in Peter's day, and the dreadful ca- 
lamities which came upon them. But it bears not the 
shadow of resemblance, to a day of judgment at the end 
of this world, or endless misery in hell. Had Peter, by 
a day of judgment, verse 9, referred to the orthodox judg- 
ment at the end of this wprW? like ttem he woiild have^ 
10 ' 



74 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

gone on to describe, the terrible and endless punishment 
of such wicked characters. Well, say some, '* does not 
Peter do this very thing, for at verse 17 he says, ' to 
whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.' " Yes, 
but such persons take for granted the very things which 
ought to be proved, that this mist of darkness is natural 
darkness, is in a future state of existance, and is endless 
in its durtion. These things they will riot find easily 
proved. It may then be asked, " how do you make these 
words agree with your views of a day of judgement ? It 
is their perfect agreement with my views, which leads me 
partly to conclude, that they are correct. I have then 
said, that the day of judgment refers to the temporal ven- 
geance which came on the Jews. Allowing then that 
the term darkness, refers to moral darkness here, as it 
certainly does in many places in scripture, as could be 
easily shown if it were necessary, it exactly answers to 
the present situation of the Jews. Since that period, 
their eyes have been darkened that they might not see : 
Blindness has happened unto them, and will continue 
until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. This has 
continued already for nearly two thousand years. And 
although it is not to be endless in its duration, yet it may 
be said to he for ever in the Jewish usage of this expres- 
sion. In concluding my remarks on this passage, I shall 
briefly notice the declaration, ''the Lord knoweth how 
to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be pun- 
ished." The general meaning of the word rendered re- 
serve is, "to keep, or reserve something until after- 
wards." If the question is here asked, reserve or keep 
the unjust till after what? The answer is, until after the 
Lord hath delivered the godly out of their temptations. 
The antediluvians were not punished, until after God 
had delivered Noah and shut him safely up in the Ark. 
The Sodomites were not punished until Lot had escap- 
ed from Sodom. '' Haste thee," said the Angel to Lot, 
''for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither." 
The Lord also reserved the unbelieving Jews, until af- 
ter his disciples had left the city and were safe in Pella. 
Seeing the signs given by our Lord, Matt. 24, they left 
it. Then, and not until then, did the wrath of God 
come on them to the uttermost. 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 75 

2 Peter iii, 7, is the next passage. '' But the heav^ 
«ns and the earth which are now, hy the same word are 
kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judg- 
ment, (eis hemeran kriseos) and perdition of ungodly 
men.'^ The Greek phrase here, is the same as in the 
preceding text, is used by the same writer, and in the 
same epistle. The presumption is, that the apostle used 
it in the same sense as in the preceding texts. It is not 
probable, that in the course of a few verses, he should 
change its sense. But let us notice the persons who are 
here referred to by Peter. He calls them ''ungodly 
men." In the last passage he calls them "unjust,'* 
but in neither does he intimate, that the punishmwit or 
perdition at the day of judgment was for all ungodly or 
unjust men. No such thing is taught in any of the 
places where the day of judgment is spoken of- Notice 
further, that " the day of judgment" and " perdition" of 
those ungodly men are represented as simultaneous events; 
or, if the word and is rendered even it will make them the 
same; " Reserved unto fire against the day of judgment 
even perdition of ungodly men." To most people the 
word perdition conveys somethijig tremendous. It not 
only leads their minds into a future state, but to a pun- 
ishment, inconceivable in its nature, and endless in its 
duration. The following are all the places where the 
original word rendered perdition occurs in the New Tes- 
tament, and the various ways it is translated in our ver- 
sion. It is rendered tvaste, Matt, xxvi, 8; Mark xiv, 
4; and applied to a box of ointment. It is rendered 
pernicious^ 2 Peter, ii, 2, and applied to the ways of 
the false teachers. In Acts viii, 20, perish; ^' Thy 
money perish with thee," which surely does not mean 
thy money go to hell or endless misery with thee. It 
is also rendered damnable and damnation, 2 Peter 
ii, 1, 3, and is applied to the hei^esies and punish- 
ment of the false teachers. Is n0t the damnation, 
that slumbereth not, and the judgment that lingereth 
not, the same, and do not both refer to the temporal 
punishment of which we have spoken on the preceding 
passage? Had the word been rendered destruction, as 
it is in some other texts, endless misery would never 
liave been thought of fyom this passage. Thus it 1* 



76 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

rendered destruction^ 2 Peter ii, 1, and iii, 16; Philip, 
iii^ 19; Matt, vii, 13; Rom. ix, 22. In some of these 
texts it evidently refers to the temporal destruction of 
the Jews, but in none of them does it refer to endless 
misery in a future state. But in the following texts it 
is rendered perdition. The beast that ascended out of 
the bottomless pit shall ''go into perdition.'' Was this 
into endless hell torments? Rev. xvii, 8—11. Paul 
says, 1 Tim. vi, 9, '' They that will be rich fall into 
temptation, and a snare, and into many foolish and hurt- 
ful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition." 
Is not the destruction and perdition referred to, explain^ 
ed in the next verse, and called, ''piercing themselves 
through with many sorrows." To say it refers to end- 
less misery is adding to the divine record. It is first as- 
suming the questicm in debate, and then accommodating 
the language of scripture in support of such an assump- 
tion. In John xvii, 12, Judas is called the " son of per- 
dition." Did not he, by his love of money, pierce him- 
self through with many sorrows, and drown himself in 
destruction and perdition? Bad as Judas was, it is not 
said he went to hell, or even into Mr. S.'s future retri- 
bution. In 2 Thess. ii, 3, Paul calls the man of sin, 
*' The son of perdition." Any one who consults Whit- 
by on this chapter, may see evidence stated, which will 
not be easily refuted, that the son of perdition referred 
to the unbelieving Jews. Philip, i, 28; " and in nothing 
terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evi- 
dent token of perdition." It could be easily shown, 
that the adversaries of Christians in the apostles' day, 
were the unbelieving Jews. Their persecutors filled 
up the measure of their iniquity, and were an evident 
token of the perdition or destruction, which came on 
them as predicted. Matt, xxiv, compare 2 Thess. i, 5. 
Again, Heb.-x, 39, it is said, " But we are not of them 
who draw back unto perdition." On this text we w^ould 
notice that Paul here wrqte to believing Hebrews. 
They were suffering persecution, verse 32—35. Some 
of them were drawing or had drawn back, verse 25. 
Addressing those who yet continued steadfast, he says, 
we are not of them who draw back unto perdition. 
What perdition? We should think this must be the per-, 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 77 

dition or destruction coming on their nation, for this was 
predicted by our Lord, Matt, xxiv, and was a thing gen- 
erally expected by all Christ's disciples. He that en- 
dured to the end was saved. 

Let us now consult the context, and see if it does not 
aflford evidence in support of the views v/e have stated. 
Upon the supposition that a day of judgement at the end 
of this world is meant, it must follow, that the apostles 
expected it to take place during that generation. The 
whole context goes to show this. They were looking 
for it, and hastening to it, and Christians were earnestly 
exhorted to be prepared for its arrival. See verses 11--1S. 
It was looked upon as so ne«r, that the scoffers consid- 
ered God slack as to his promise concerning it. Peter 
accounts for its delay on account of God's long-suffering. 
See vers^ 9. It will not be questioned that the unbe- 
lieving Jews during that generation were ungodly, scof- 
fers, w^alking after their own lusts. Nor will it be deni- 
ed, that in view of the day of awful judgment coming on 
them as a nation, Christ's disciples were exhorted to pa- 
tience and watchfulness. This day, both by our Lord 
and Peter, is represented by the coming of a thief in the 
night. See Matt, xxiv, 43, and compare verse 10 of the 
context of the passage under consideration. x\re we 
then, in support of the common opinion of a day of judg- 
ment, to admit that Peter and the first Christians were 
all mistaken ? The fact proves that they were mistaken. 
But if we admit this, does not this very admission inval- 
idate the whole of their testimony. Why not also mis- 
taken in all that they have written ? And who can answer 
Gibbon and other infidel writers upon such a supposition? 
But on the supposition that a day of judgment on the 
Jews is referred to, all is plain and easy, the credit of 
the apostles is supported, and is in unison with what our 
Lord predicted. This was an event looked for by all 
Christians during that period, and a suitable conduct was 
expected from them in view of it. All this is plain from 
the New Testament, but the common opinion of a day 
of judgment is assumed, and this and other texts are 
quoted in proof of it, at the expense of the credit of 
the New Testament writers, and in opposition to the 
scope of the context. But if the common opinion of a 
flay of Judgment, founded on this and the preceding. 



78 MR. Sabine's PROOFS op a 

texts be admitted, the ungodly are not to be punished un- 
til this period, as has already been shown. I am aware 
that it may be objected, '' Does not the language used 
in the context show that Peter is speaking of a day of 
judgment at the end of this material world? Does he not 
speak of the heavens and the earth being reserved unto 
iire against this day? And does he not describe the dis- 
solution of the present system in very awful and plain 
language?" See verse vii, 10—13. In answer to this 
let it be noticed. That this can occasion no real diffi- 
culty, to those who have considered, that the prophets 
often describe in very similar language, the dissolution 
of kingdoms, or great political and moral changes in the 
earth. That they have described the removal of the 
Jewish dispensation, in the very same or similar lan- 
guage could be easily shown if it were necessary. Those 
who wish to see this proved may consult M' Knight on 
Matt. 24th, and other commentators If it is contended 
that the end of this material world is described in verses 
7 — 12, it must also be admitted, that a new material 
heavens and earth are promised, verse 13, to succeed their 
dissolution. If the one is to be understood literally, why 
not also the other? But the new heavens and new earth, 
are allowed to signify the establishment of the new dis- 
pensation, which is often called the kingdom of heaven 
in' scripture ; and in the language of the Old Testament, 
new heavens and new earth. See Isa. Ixv, 17 — 20 and 
Ixvi, 22. 

IJohn iv, 17, is the only other text in which the ex- 
pression ''the day of judgment'' occurs. '' Herein is 
our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the 
day of judgment : (en te hemera tes kriseos :) because 
as he is, so are we in this world." This is the only text 
where this phrase is used ynth the article the. It can 
occasion no serious difficulty to my views of this phrase, 
for if the day of God's judgment on the Jews was a thing 
expected during that generation, and no doubt was a sub- 
ject familiar among Christians, it was natural to speak 
of it as the diij of judgment. At the time John wrote, 
this day was near, and they are exhorted to watchfulness, 
that they might have boldness and not be ashamed before 
him at his coming. Compare chap, ii, 28 ; Matt, xxviii, 
24-~ol. 



FUTURE RJsiTRiBUtlON CONSID]BrE0. 79 

Such are all the places in the Bible, where, the phrase, 
*' the day of judgment,'' occurs. In concluding our ret^ 
marks, we would ask, if this phrase referred to a judg- 
ment day at the end of time for all mankind, is it not 
rather surprising that the Old Testament writers should 
say nothing about it 1 Is it not equally strange, that th^ 
New Testament writers, when they do use it, are not 
treating of the end oi this world, but of the day of ven^ 
geance which came on the Jewish nation. I ask further, 
if the sacred writers believed just as people do now about 
this, how came it to pass that they preached so little about 
it, compared w^ith preachers in our day ? The book of the 
Acts contains the history of the apostles' preaching for 
thirty years, and chapi. x, 4S, xxiv, 25, and xvii, 31, are 
the chief, if not all the texts which w^ould be quoted, that 
they preached this doctrine. The last of these Mr. S. 
quotes, p. 54, in proof of his future retribution. We 
have made soifie remarks on it in the Universalist Mag- 
azine, vol. 5, but our limits forbid their insertion, as w^ell 
as a consideration of these and other passages which a^e 
supposed to prove this subject. I ask again, why preach- 
ers now speak of the day of judgment in connexion with 
the resurrection of all the dead and the end of this world, 
when it appears that this was not done by the inspired 
writers ? In short, if the day of judgment referred to the 
judgment of all mankind at the end of time, let it be ra- 
tionally and scripturally accounted for, why it is seeming- 
ly introduced when they are speaking of God's awful 
judgments on the Jewish nation. 

It will be readily perceived, that if my views of " the 
day of judgment" are correct, they deeply affect Mr. S.'s 
whole scheme of future retribution. Should he deem it 
expedient to reply, let him show wherein I have misinter- 
preted the passages, and I pledge myself to stand correct- 
ed by him, or offer some defence of what has been ad- 
vanced. I might here put an end to my reply, until I 
see how he supports this foundation of his whole scheme. 
If he or his orthodox friends, lets this corner stone go^ 
the whole superstructure must fall of course. He thought 
it the most tenable and safe ground, to advocate a future 
retribution, and not endless misery in answering my book. 
Whether he will abide by this ground, return to the old 



W MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

orthodox ground, or shift to one different from both, must 
be left for time to unfold. Whatever course he pursues, 
it is lioped he will avoid altering this book which he may 
think saps the foundation of his future retribution, as the 
*^ Inquiry" did that of endless misery. Let him not say 
I defy the armies of the living God. No, I defy no 
man, but only wish, calmly and candidly to examine 
what is the truth of God on the questions at issue, which 
are of great importance to us all. 

We shall now return to Mr. S.'s discourses. On p. 
49, he recurs to Rev. xx, 12. But is Mr. S. certain 
that a passage from the highly figurative book of Rev- 
•Blation will prove his point, when he may see that' the 
plain passages he quotes are not to his purpose. But 
let him go to work and show us, that this passage, and 
why not also all the book? is to be understood literally, 
before we receive his doctrine. But even literally un- 
derstood, it does not support it. Yea, what text has Mr. 
S. produced which proves this assertion of his in p. 51? 
"^^ God will send away the wicked into a state of punish- 
ment in the future and unseen world.'' Let him show 
how his texts bear on this point. On p. 50 he partially 
quotes Heb. x, 30, and Rev. xxii, 12, but without a sin- 
gle remark. But these texts say not a word about a fu- 
ture world or punishment in it, and I cannot afford to fill 
my pages in reply to texts, which he deems unworthy of 
remark to show how they apply to his subject. But on 
p. 51, Mr. S. brings up again his old alteration of my 
book, that '' there is no future punishment." And adds, 
'' This then is the sentiment we are to meet in conclud- 
ing this lecture." This he does in three particulars. 
But as they are all built on his own false statement they 
deserve no attention from me. But lest he should think 
his three remarks, extending to twice as many pages, 
neglected, I shall give them a little attention. 

In the first, Mr. S. thinks that I am '^exceedingly 
mistaken" about the doctrine of future retribution : And 
that I speak very " incorrectly and loosly," because I 
say " heil torments," and did not use his language " future 
punishment," &c. What! has the phrases, ''eternal 
hell, endless misery in hell, or endless punishment in 
fire and brimstone,^^ become grating to Mr. S.'s ears ? 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 81 

Why then could he not have let my book be answered 
by somB of his orthodox friends, in whose ears these are 
pleasent sounds. But has he forgot, that he admitted, 
that '* the avoived object of my book was to sap the 
foundation of endless misery." If he was a little fear- 
ful, to answer the avowed object of my book, was it like 
a noble minded man to alter it? 2d. He thinks I am 
" exceedingly mistaken,' ' about a future retribution not 
tending to promote holiness. Mr. S. should recollect, 
that the phrase "future retribution," does not occur in 
my book, nor even in the Bible. It was never denied 
by me, that '^ the inspired ministers of religion," preach- 
ed punishment to deter men from sin. What I have 
denied, and still continue to deny, is, that they preached 
endless hell torments to deter them from it. Can he 
prove that they did? If he could, why alter my book? 
If he can establish a future temporary punishment, let it 
be done honestly and fairly. All his attempts to prove 
it from God's threatening to Adam, the preaching of 
Enoch, Noah, Moses, &.c. which he again introduces, 
pp. 55, 56, proye abortive. But here he introduces a 
new preacher of it, for he tells us, " Jonah preached to 
the Gentiles, but he preached retribution: yet forty days 
and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Stay thy han(j[ 
friend Sabine with your proofs of a future retribution, 
for surely this is too much for credulity herself to be- 
lieve. Was Nineveh to be overthrown within forty 
days in a future state?" And was Jonah displeased ex- 
ceedingly, yea very angry, that God did not do this? 
Compare Jonah iv, 1, with iii, 10. Mr. S. in his third 
rem§u:-k, adverts to the evil tendency of my views: But 
they happen to be his own false representations of them. 
Let Mr. S. quote the page of my book, showing, that 
my " scheme is a sanctuary for the man th^t dies in the 
very act of murder," and, that it makes "no moral dif- 
ference," between the very worst and best of men. 
We demand o^f him to give the public my words, or re- 
tract such gross misrepresentations. But what else 
could be expected from him, who drew the seven infer- 
ences already noticed in his first discourse. In con- 
ducting this third discourse, Mr. S. says, " I would sol- 
emnly call upon him to re-examine his progress, for infi- 
ll 



82 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

dels of every grade will lay claim to him, and free think- 
ers, and free livers too, will lay hold by his skirts, .and 
he will not be able to shake them off." In concluding 
our remarks on it we return him the quotation with a 
slight variation of the language. " I v/ould sokmly call 
on him to re-examine the whole of his orthodox creed, 
for infidels of every grade have been made infidels by it, 
and free thinkers, and free livers too, .have laid hold of 
its skirts to justify their conduct, and all the orthodox 
body have not been able to shake them off." 

LECTURE lY 

Mr. Sabine entitles this discourse, *' Rewards and 
punishments in a future state, proved from the direct tes- 
timony of scripture.'^ We may surely ask, from what 
has he been proving this in his three preceding discours- 
es? It seems that he is conscious, his former proofs have 
not been very direct. Well, we are now to have his di- 
7'ect proofs, and no doubt his strong reasons. Let us 
see what they are. His text is Prov. xiv, 32. " The 
wicked is driven away in his wickedness ; but the right- 
eous hath hope in hrs death;" and Luke x^4, 22, 23, 
" And it came to pass that the begger died, and was car- 
ried by the angels inta Abraham'^s bosom : the rich man 
also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, 
being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Laz- 
arus in his bosam.'^' After spending three pages to in- 
form us, that ail we know of a future state must be from 
divine revelation, he comes to this result, p. 60, " Thus 
have we made our way to the subject of this lecture, re- 
wards and punishments in a future state, as revealed 
in the holy sciiptures : it is a subject beyond the reach 
of human speculation." Agreed. The simple, and en- 
tire question then is, vjhat does divine revelation teach 
concerning it ?- The use Mr. S. makes of his text is, 
*' the wicked is driven away in his wickedness," and this 
is, '' to scenes of misery," " In hell he lifted up his eyes 
being in torments." Seepp. 60, 61. Notice here, 1st, 
That he takes for granted the question in debate, that 
these texts teach a future punishment in Hades. He ought 
first to have proved, that Hades is a place or &tate of 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 



83 



isisery, as something considerable was said in the ^* In- 
quiry," showing that it is not. Reasons were offered 
for our opinions, which Mr. S. do£S not attempt to re- 
fute. He seems to intimate, p. 59,, that reason li^as no 
further office but to examine the evidence for divine rev- 
elation. But we are surely bound to exercise it also in 
ascertaining what is the true sense of that revelation. 
Does Mr. S. receive every sea^se put on parts of scrip- 
ture 7 If he does, why did he not receive mine ? Does 
he receive the Catholic interpretation of the words, ''this 
is my body 7" If not, the question then betwixt us is, 
What is the true sense of the scriptures on the subject 
we are discussing ? But he says, or insinuates, that I 
refuse to believe spme parts of revelation. Because I 
do not believe Mr. S.'s views and those of the orthodox 
about helly I must be branded for infidelity. And why 
have not' I as good right to say he denies divine revela- 
tion, because he does not believe mine? But this is far 
from my heart ; I would only amicably discuss with him, 
what is the true sense of any given text which is adduced 
as proof of the questions at issue. 2d. He connects two 
texts, one from the Old, and the other from the New 
Testament, to make out his system, which is, to say the 
least, a very objectionable association of scripture. If 
he allows me the same liberty of associations, I can 
prove, that he ought to practice many evil things, which 
I forbear naming. But Mr. S. on his own authority, 
tells us, that the wicked, when driven away in his wick- 
edness, is driven to Hades, as a place of misery. Job 
says, chap, xviii, 18, that the wicked " shall be driven 
from light into darkness, and chased out of the world ;'^ 
but he does not venture to say as Mr. S. does, that he is 
driven '' to scenes of misery.'' No doubt he icnows bet- 
ter than Job, or any othej:- inspired writer, about this, 
But it is not said that this man was ivicked, according to 
his own account of him. Nor is a hint given us, that he 
was driven away- It is said he died ; but not a syllable 
is uttered indicating force on the one hand or reluctance 
on the other. Had Mr. S. preached his funeral sermon, 
perhaps he would have sent him tQ Abraham's bosom. 

On page 61, Mr, S. commences his remarks onSh^ol, 
Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna. After some remarks, in 



84 MR. Sabine's PROOFS of a 

accordance with my views, he gives us the following re- 
sult in unison with them as to Sheol and Hades. '* We 
see from hence, that the more literal meaning of Sheol is 
pretty well preserved in the three English renderings, pit, 
grave and hell, a place in which the dead are buried, and 
so concealed or put out of our sight ; as Abraham said 
to the sons of Heth, demanding a burying placje among 
them, 'That I may bury my dead out of my sight. '^ 
Hades, as \Ye have seen, is the common Greek term for 
expressing what is conveyed by Sheol, and is so used in 
the Septiiagint, the translation of the Hebrew scrip- 
tures into Greek by the Seventy." Here Mr. S. ad- 
mits *' Sheol" to be a place in which the dead are buri- 
ed, and that this is its more hteral meaning. He allows 
also, th(it " Hades is the common Greek term for ex- 
pressing what is conveyed by Sheol," Well said ; but 
let us now see how he proceeds in his remarks, pp. 61, 62. 
1st. He agrees with me about Sheol and Hades, render-^ 
cd pit, grave and hell in the common version. ^' Hades is 
a very good rendering into Greek of the term Sheol in 
the Hebrew. Pit, grave, and hell, in English, also 
generally express what is intended by Sheol and Hades." 
By pit and grave, " the invisible state of the dead has 
be^en intended." Bui hell, he says, " has proved to be a 
more unfortunate tern^." Why more unfortunate? Be^ 
pause, says he, it '' has been chosen as a word by which 
to represent a future state of misery," Here Mr. S, 
perfectly agrees with me, that hell has changed its origi- 
nal signification. But at what period, or, whether gradu^ 
ally, or all at once it came to have such a meaning, he 
affords no more light than I did on this subject. But he 
quotes my very words, to show that he agrees with me, 
and then refers to several places in the Geneva Bible in 
confirmation of the correctness of our mutual opinions, 
fie concludes by saying, '' It appears to me that in the 
time of this translation, hell, pit and grave were synony- 
mous, and alike considered as representing the invisible 
state, without one being more indicative of misery than 
the other." We thank Mr. S. kindly for this conces- 
sion, It not only confirms what I have statecl on this 
subject, but is at total variance with the views he wishes 
fo establish. Put, 2d, There are some things in the two 



FUTUR'k REtRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 85 

pages referred to which we are at some loss clearly to 
understand. Mr. S. says, Sheol signifies " the invisible 
future worldP^ But of this he gives us no proof, but 
on the contrary, his statements are at variance with his 
assertion, as is easily seen from those pages. I want 
some explanation to know what he means by '' Sheol 
through the Greek Hades, passes into Enghsh as pit, 
grave, hell." I am still more at a loss to understand 
what he means when he says, '' But there is no more 
punishment and misery in translating Hades into hell 
than into pit or grave. ^^ He surely did not mean to 
inform us, that in the mere act of translation, the trans- 
lator felt no more punishment in the one case than he did 
in the other. From the connexion it should seem, that 
he means, that the word hell did not signify in their use 
of it, a place of misery in a future state, any more than 
the words pit and grave, ''for hell simply signifies the 
concealed state as do the other terms." This is confirm- 
ed from the next sentence, for which we thank our friend 
Mr. sS. once more. He rays, ''And it appears to me also, 
that our translators had no more idea of conveying a sehse 
of punishment, or misery, in the term hell, than they had 
in the other terms." This is a bold stroke. It is a per- 
fect libel on the whole orthodox body, who have so gross- 
ly misunderstood, and as grossly misrepresented the lan- 
guage of our worthy translators. If they did not mean 
to convey the idea of punishment or misery by the term 
%ell in our Enghsh version, how comes it to pass, that 
the orthodox have been putting such a sense on this word 
in their preaching, and quotations from it? Has Mr. S, 
never preached from it, and quoted it, putting the sense 
of punishment or misery on the word hell? Yet with the 
highest pretensions to orthodoxy, without a blush or an 
apology to the public, he comes forward and tells us, 
*'And it appears to me also, that our translators had no 
more idea of conveying a sense of punishment, or misery, 
in tl\e term hell, than they had in the other terms." 
Very well. According to Mr. S. neither the term hell, 
nor any of the other terms, conveyed a sense of " punish- 
ment or misery," iior was it the intention of our transkr 
tors by these words, to convey any such idea. Why 
then does Mr. S. quote any of sugh passages to prove 
)iis future punishment? 



86 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

But Mr. S. proceeds to say, "2. Remark upon these 
terms in the. original and translation. Sheol in the He- 
brew-, Hades in the Greek, and pit, grave, or hell in the 
English, do not describe to us any place or the circum- 
stances of any location whatever. Sheol, rendered as it 
nxay be, asserts and reveals to us the future, invisible, 
spiritual state ; for, first, it cannot mean that place we 
call the grave literally, that place in^ which the human 
body is laid to corrupt and consume away. Sheol is not 
used for this purpose, another word is used." Strange ! 
beyond measure strange ! ! Has Mr. S. forgot so soon 
that he said, p. 61, " The more literal meaning of Sheol 
is pretty well preserved in the three English renderings, 
pit, grave and hell, a place in which the dead are buried, 
and so concealed or put out of our sight." But now he 
point blank denies that it does mean the grave. But he 
says further, that Sheol, Hades, pit, grave or hell, ''do 
not describe to us any place or the circumstances of any 
location whatever." But this is only Mr. S.'s mere as- 
sertion, and is at variance with the language used in 
speaking of Sheol and Hades, as any one may see from 
that part of the Inquiry where such words are consider- 
ed. I shall give an example or two. When we read of 
persons going down to Sheol, of the deeps of Sheol, of 
tlie lowe^ Sheol, and of Sheol beneath ; does such lan- 
guage describe to us " no place or the circumstances of 
any location whatever ?" Pray what language can, if 
this does not ? What is Mr. S.'s mere assertions good 
for when confronted with this scripture language. But 
he says, Sheol "reveals to us the future, invisible, spir 
ituai state." Mr. S. offers us some proof here which 
we shall examine. It is this ; 1st, When the "sepulchre, 
tomb, or burying place for the body is intended, the He- 
brew word is Keber, which is never translated Hades." 
But how does it follow from this that therefore Sheol is 
the invisible spiritual state ? What connexion is there 
between the premises and the conclusion. But does he 
not know, that Sheol is the general term, by which the 
scriptures speak of the universal recepticle of all the 
dead, good or bad ; " The house appointed for all the liv- 
ing," and concerning which it is said, " All go to one 
place." Tijje Kebers, or graves were many, and far 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 87 

separated from each other, yea many died and had no 
Keber assigned them : Yet all these dead when spoken 
of collectively, are never represented as in one Keber, 
or sepulchre, but are spoken of as in one place, and that 
is Sheol. But is this Sheol or recepticle of all the dead, 
ever spoken of as Mr. S. does, as a spiritual state. We 
thought we had said enough on the texts which speak of 
Sheol and Hades, to show^ that it is spoken of as a state 
of ignorance, and insensibility, except where figurative 
discriptions are given of it. Even the best of men de- 
clare, that there is no remembrance of God in Sheol, and 
that none there give God thanks. ^ A strange spiritual 
state indeed for a good man to be in, and enough to put 
down Mr. S.'s assertion for ever ? Had he attended to 
these things, he never would have given us his criticism 
about Keber, nor Taphos, or Mnema, nor told us, 
'' neither is Hades ever compounded with funeral rites. 
Nor would he have referred us to Acts ii, 27, 29, in 
proof of his view. Mr. S. will allow, that in the w^ords, 
" Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol, Hades, or Hell, 
the grave, or common recepticle of all the dead is meant, 
or the concealed place." But the individual sepulchre of 
David was as certainly meant, when Peter says, " His. 
sepulchre is with us to this day." His tomb was visi- 
ble before their eyes, but was David's body visible 1 We 
thought that he had told us himself above, that Abraham 
and others buried their dead that they might be out of 
their sight. Had Mr. S. only attended to his own de- 
claration, page 64, that, " Sheol or Hades is the common 
recepticle of the departed, without any regard to the 
places where their bodies are buried," he would not have 
written as he has done, nor have added in the same page, 
that " Sheol is in the singular number." 

But Mr. S. adds, "- 3. We are now brought to a dis- 
tinct idea upon the state and character of the future 
world, as e:5tpressed by Sheol, Hades, pit, grave, or hell. 
It is evidently a spiritual state, a state and condition suit- 
ed to man as disembodied, and separate from this visible, 
material world. It is spiritual, in opposition to mate- 
rial^ and state in opposition to place. It is not material 
or natural, for, the tomb, the sepulchre receives the ma- 
terial or natural man, but Hades, the spiritual man," 



88 MR. SABIN«'S PROOFS OF A 

But as this, and all he says under this particular, is mere 
assertion, yea, contrary to what has been even allowed 
by himself, it deserves no notice from me. When he 
gives us any thing like argument, I shall meet him with 
argument, but point blank assertions deserve no reply. 
But Mr. S says, p. 65, "4th Article. The knowledge 
at which we are arrived on the subject of the future state, 
whether it be by means of such terms as Sheolj Hades, 
Keber, Hell, or grave, sepulchre, or tomb, the source 
of this knowledge is Revelation, a distinct communica- 
tion from the Divine Spirit — the King eternal, immortal, 
invisible. Without a divine revelation on this subject 
we could have known nothing. The very terms used 
report our ignorance, Hades! the concealed, invisible, 
unknown state.^^ Mr. S. ought not to call this an " un- 
known state,^^ for he says that it is a state of punish- 
ment or misery. He seems to know all about it, and 
pretends to derive his knowledge too from the Bible. 
How then can it be an unknown state 1 But Mr. S. 
page 66, says, " The scriptures challenge man upon his 
ignorance in this case. Job xxxviii, 17.'' Had God 
challenged him, " Have the gates of death been opened 
to thee ? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of 
death ?" he could have answered yes, I know it to be a 
place of punishment or misery. But he says, " 2d, Ja- 
cob knew that the departed lived in another world ; I 
will go down to the grave to my son, meaning Joseph, 
whom he supposed to be dead." Yes, but did he say he 
would go down to a place or state of punishment or mis- 
try ? or did he even say, that Joseph and he would be 
aliYe there ? he only says, he would go down to Sheol, 
the place where there is no devise, wisdom, or knowl- 
edge, nor even remembrance of God, nor giving him 
thanks. This is an unfortunate quotation, nor is the ref- 
erence to Job any better. Job says he knew that his 
Redeemer lived, and that he would, after worms had de- 
stroyed this body, yet in his flesh see God. But does 
he say a word about Mr. S.'s state of punishment in an- 
other world ? It was not until this corruptible had put 
on incorruption that he even hoped to see God. But 
Mr. S. page 66, adds, " Third] What is revealed, of 
the unseen, future world, Sheol or Hades, is a develop- 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED- 89 

ment of man's moral character and condition. The first 
member of our text, ' The ^.vlcked is driven away in his 
wickedness;' Whereto? 'The wicked shall be turned 
into hell,' into Hades, ' with all that forget God.' " The 
simple question between us is, What is revealed ? Let 
our readers judge if Mr. S. has proved that " Sheol or 
Hades is a development qf man's moral character and 
condition." If assertions are proof, we have had more 
than enough of them. But it is with what God, not Mr. 
S. reveals to us, we are concerned. But he again re- 
curs to his text for proof ; ' ' The wicked is driven away 
in his wickedness ! Where to? ' The wicked shall be 
turned into hell,' into Hades, 'with ail that forget God." 
But has Mr. S. proved that Hades or Sheol is a place of 
misery? That it is not, we have sufficiently proved above, 
but have refuted it at length in the Inquiry. This evi- 
dence Mr. S. does not attempt to refute. But he pro- 
ceeds to review my sentiments and compare them. He 
says, p. 68, "We can but observe here, as in former 
branches of investigation, that Mr. B. is asserting one 
thing, and proving another. His assertion is, and his 
book was written to make good the assertion, JVo future 
punishment. But his arguments, his proofs, and his 
illustrations are for JVb eternal punishments^ I must 
be a strange writer indeed, according to this account. I 
wrote a book expressly to show there was no future 
punishment^ and yet I made all my arguments, proofs, 
and illustrations, to bear against endless punishment. 
Well, it seems at last my book contains some arguments, 
and proofs, and illustrations ; and Mr. S. owns frankly, 
that they all hear against endless punishment. This 
was just what I intended them, and it affords me pleas- 
ure to find, that he confesses that this was my object in 
writing. He has hitherto represented me as professing 
to prove, no endless misery., but actually proving no fu- 
ture punishment. Now he reverses the case. The 
supposed inconsistency in my book, which has given him 
so much trouble as he says it has, and involves him in 
such inconsistencies, is entirely of his own creating, even 
by his own confession. 

On page 71 Mr. S. says, " I assert it without the 
least fear of contradiction, that what the heathen knew 
12 



90 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

of a future state, they received directly^ or indirectly 
from divine revelation, the. same source originally as did 
the Jews.*"' The fact was originally from this source, 
but what Mr. S. had got to prove is, that the heathen 
derived the knowledge of punishment in this future 
state from revelation and was not an addition of their 
own. I have offered some proof in the Inquiry that it 
was their own addition, which Mr. S. as usual makes no 
attempt to refute nor even state to his readers. We have 
seen above what he says of Tartarus and also his con- 
cessions about Sheol and Hades. He allows, "The 
heathen had very imperfect ideas on this subject, and 
many were their inventions and additions, but the idea 
simply was from a divine source." If it was not their 
own invention, but from a divine source, let Mr. S. show 
us this divine source, for all he has advanced does not 
prove his point, as we think has been shown. I have as- 
serted and given proof of it, that the heathen added the 
idea of punishment to the word Hades, for no such idea 
was attached to the corresponding word Sheol, in the 
Old Testament. But says Mr. S. ''Of this asserted fact 
Mr. B. gives us no proof; neither is there any evidence 
before the world, that the heathen of any nation, invent- 
ed the doctrine of a future retribution in rewards and 
punishments." But in the ' Inquiry' I have adduced 
evidence, and the very same kind of evidence, that he 
would adduce, that purgatory is a human invention. Yea, 
I question if he could produce from Catholic and other 
writers, evidence equally good, against it, as I have done 
from orthodox writers. I presume a Catholic would not 
be at much loss, to produce as plausible proofs of his 
purgatory from the Bible, as Mr. S. has produced from 
it for his future retribution. We question, if ever any 
of them were more unfortunate in quotations, than Mr. 
S. is in the following. He says p. 72, " Isaiah xiv, in 
the strongest language, sets before us the condition of 
men in the future world; in Hades too. ' The dead are 
stirred up; even all the chief ones of the earth; all the 
kings of the nations are raised up from their thrones.' 
There is an exhibition of the living, not of the dead 
corpses." Please turn to p. 50 of the Inquiry and read 
it, and then sav, if Mr. S. would not have better said 



FUTURE- RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 91 

nothing about this text. Yet he tells us that it, " in the 
strongest language sets before us the condition of men 
in the future world.^'' But it says not a word about 
punishment or misery in a future state. Before I say 
any thing more on this text, I should like to know if 
Mr. S. was serious in urging it in proof of his doctrine. 
I am very sure every intelligent orthodox person, will 
feel mortified, that he should have exposed their cause 
by adducing it. Isa. xivth would never have been quot- 
ed by him, had he found Sheol used, " almost always in 
relation to the state and condition of departed spirits.'' 
If he did, he is very injudicious in making his selection 
of proofs. 

In pp. 73—76, Mr. S. leads us on to Apocryphal 
ground. He says, 1st, That those Avriters " Never con- 
tend for the doctrine of future retribution, the doctrine 
is taken for granted, as a doctrine of divine revelation 
found in the law and the prophets." This is a bold as- 
sertion. How then does Mr. S. know but all tiie other 
silly stories of those writers, which they also take for 
granted as true, are not doctrines of divine revelation. 
One should think his own observation would teach him, 
that people are more ready to receive and take for grant- 
ed human inventions in religion than doctrines sanction- 
ed by divine authority. 2d. Mr. S. again introduces 
the Apochryphal book of Enoch. He says the lan- 
guage of this book, is in resemblance to Deut. xxxii, 
22; and Isai. xxxiii, 14, which passages we have shown 
in the Inquiry, have no reference to future punishment. 
The question is not, did those Apocryphal writers be- 
lieve in future punishment themselves, but the question 
is, whence did they derive their information about this') 
Not from the Old Testament scriptures, for it is allowed 
by the ablest "writers, that this doctrine is not taught 
there. All the proofs Mr. S. has been able to bring 
from it, only tend to show the correctness of their state- 
ments. Should he say, that the Seventy, in rendering 
Sheol, used the word Hades, which conveyed the idea 
of punishment in a future state, and that this proved that 
Sheol had also the same idea attached to it by the Old 
Testament writers, we must say this is a great mistake, 
and one very easily detected. We have only to ask, were 



92 MR, SABINE^S PROOFS OF A 

the seventy translators inspired men? If not, their use 
of the word Hades in rendering Sheol, no more proves 
this, than that the word Hell expresses the same as She- 
ol when used hy our translators. Neither of these trans- 
lators were inspired men, and their use of Hades and 
Hell in rendering Sheol, is no proof that it conveyed 
the idea of a state of rewards and punishments in a fu- 
ture state. We have shown, that the general usage of 
Sheol, yea a variety of palpable facts are opposed to this 
view of the subject. The Seventy, and our translators 
also, in rendering Sheol, chose the words, v^^hich came 
nearest to express their own ideas, and perhaps the Lest 
they could find as a translation of Sheol. We are per- 
fectly aware, that it may be objected; " Did not the 
inspired writers of the New Testament write in Greek, 
and did not they use the term Hades? If it conveyed 
the idea of future rewards and punishments, why did 
they use it, if they did not mean that we should believe 
this doctrine?" The answ^er to this objection will show, 
that this very circumstance is ruinous to Mr. S.'s whole 
theory, and confirms all I have said on the subject. 
Well, the New Testament writers wrote in Greek, and 
used the term Hades^ but I ask, do they speak of Ha- 
des as a state of rewards and punishments? Let any 
one consult all the texts in which they use it, and he will 
see, that the reverse of this is the case. They speak of 
it, as the Old Testament writers do of Sheol, but never 
represent it as a place of future punishment. The par- 
able of the rich man and Lazarus is the only place which 
can be supposed as an exception to this, has been consid- 
ered in the Inquiry, and will presently be again intro- 
duced. It is not the mere use of the word Hades, but 
how it is spoken of in the texts where they use it, can 
determine whether they believed it to be a place of fu- 
ture misery for the wicked. Had the apostles believed 
that our Lord taught this in the parable, or were believ- 
ers of such a doctrine, I submit the case to Mr. Sabine 
himself to say, why they have all been entirely silent on 
such a subject. Let any candid man say, if this looks 
like the New Testament writers using Hades to express 
a state of rewards and punishments. It is of no conse- 
quence in determining this question, what ^he Apocry- 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 93 

phal writers say, the book of Enoch not excepted ; our 
only inquiry is, What saith the scriptures? 3d. But in 
confirmation of his views, Mr. S. refers to the two sects 
which arose among the Jews, the Pharisees and Saddu- 
cees. Among the latter, I have the honour to be plac- 
ed, for my book, he says, is calculated to bring Saddu- 
ceeism into credit. For such civilities I make my bow, 
and would notice what he says of the other sect, in con- 
trast with them. Page 75, he thus writes, " The Phari- 
sees, whatever might have been their superstition, an^ 
however they might have neutralized much of the divine 
testimony by vain traditions, were, notwithstanding, be- 
lievers in the great essentials of the Jewish faith. But 
almost all of these essentials the Sadducees denied. 
When our Saviour opened his ministry and asserted the 
doctrines of Moses and the Prophets, the Pharisees 
were reproved for their superstition, but applauded for 
their faith.'^^ In this he is entirely mistaken, for our 
Lord declares them to be unbelievers, '' Had ye believed 
Moses, ye would have believed me : for he wrote of me. 
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe 
my words?" John v, 46, 47. If their faith had been 
right, how came their practice to be so bad? for a right 
faith is the foundation of good practice. Their supersti- 
tious faith, begot a superstitious course of life, as it al- 
ways has, and always will do. They had made void 
God's law, both as tp faith und practice, and were reprov- 
ed by him for both. These men, " belivers in the great 
essentials of the Jewish faith! " Was there ever a more 
unscriptural assertion? for Christ,to whom their scriptures 
bore witness, and the end of their whole law for right- 
eousness, they rejected, and went about to establish their 
own righteousness. But, Mr. S. makes the Sadducees 
as bad as he well can, for he intended to class me with 
them, and the Pharisees must be made as good as pos- 
sible, for he claims kindred with them on the subject be- 
fore us. I think our friend, in his cool moments, will 
see, that in the heat of his zeal he has here carried things 
a little too far. But, if I must be classed with one or 
the other of these sects, I think friend Sabine has class- 
ed me with the best of the two. Against which of these 
two sects did our Lord direct most of his discourses? 



94> iviR. sabine's proofs of a 

Against which did he pronounce so many woes, and to 
"♦vhomdid he say, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, 
how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" &c. 

We now come to New Testament ground, and would 
just notice, that the first step on it, Mr. S. asserts with- 
out a particle of proof, that, " The doctrine of a future 
retribution is preached by John Baptist." This is rath- 
er a poor beginning. He then proceeds from p. 76, to 
the end of this discourse, to prove his doctrine from the 
parable of the rich man and Lazarus. As Mr. S. pre- 
scribes me my task here, I shall attend to it. It is this, 
as stated p. 83, '' We insist upon our author^ s proving 
this to be a parable.^^ Seeing Mr. S- insists upon my 
proving it to be a parable, I shall gird myself to the 
task assigned me. And, 

1st, We offer Mr. S. all the proofs we have adduced 
in the Inquiry, that it is not a literal account of facts, 
but a parable. These he takes no notice of, nor at- 
tempts to refute. Nor is it of much consequence for me 
to adduce any more, for he may just do the same with a 
thousand more were they adduced. But we shall give 
him a few^ more proofs in addition to those in the Inqui- 
ry, that this is a parable. 

2d. The account of the rich man and Lazarus, is 
considered a parable by orthodox people generally, if not 
universally. Whaiit higher orthodox authority can I find, 
than Mr. S. himself. He says, in the very same dis- 
course, p. 77, "- The parable of the rich man and Laza- 
rus, is furnished with imagery from both worlds, the vis- 
ible and invisible." &c. In short, he goes on as any one 
may see from p. 76—83, to consider it a parable. I am 
well aware, that p. 83, he says, " And here also we re- 
cal all our grants heretofore made allowing this to be a 
parable." But why go on through six or seven pages 
to consider it a parable, and then recal all such grants? 
Why not dash out these pages? Why go away from or- 
thodox ground, and insist on its being a literal account 
of facts? There must be some reasons for all this, and 
although Mr. S. does not state them, we may be allowed 
to guess at them. We guess then, that he thought it 
rather slender ground to rest his doctrine on a mere par- 
able, and the only text in the JYew Testament, too, in 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 95 

which any thing is said about punishment in Hades. He 
deemed it safest, to turn right round, and advocate its 
being a literal account. We shall presently take him 
upon his own ground, for now he has deprived himself of 
its being a parable. He must now abide by his literal 
account, and we fear he has gone from home as to a de- 
fence of his doctrine. It is needless for me, to quote 
any other orthodox authority, proving it to be a parable, 
for he allows, that '' almost every one besides'' himself 
has admitted it to be a parable. Now he is determined 
to think for himself, for as to Campbell, Doddridge, 
Chapman, and every other commentator or writer, yea, 
every being in the universe except Jesus Christ, he cares 
not a straw what they may say to the contrary of his lit- 
eral account. Very well said, if he w'ould only refute 
the reasons which such men offer us, that it is only a par- 
able, and give us good reasons for his literal account. 
We earnestly wish he would imitate these men also, in 
giving us reasons instead of bold sv^^eeping assertions, and 
in their candour and modesty in stating their sentiments. 
3d. To show Mr. S. that this is a parable I quote the 
following from Whitby. It contains not only some rea- 
sons showing it to be a parable which he will find some 
difficulty in answering, but it informs him of the source 
whence our Lord borrowed the parable. On Luke xvi, 
he thus writes, " That this is only a parable, and not a 
real history of what was actually done, is evident, 1. 
Because we find this very parable in the Gemara Bah- 
ylonicum, w^hence it is cited by Mr. Sheringham^ in 
the preface to his Joma. 2. From the circumstances 
of it, viz. the rich man's lifting up his eyss in hell^ and 
seeing Lazarus in Abraham^ s bosom ^ his discourse with 
Abraham, his complaint of being tormented ivith flames^ 
and his desire that Lazarus might be sent to cool his 
tongue; and if all this be confessedly parable, why 
should the rest, which is the very parable in the Gema- 
ra, be accounted history? As for the judgment of an- 
tiquity in this case, they who owned this as an history, 
owned the whole so to be, thinking the soul to be cor- 
poreal, as Tertullian did, and that there was some dis- 
cretion, or resemblance of men as to their shapes after 
death; which was the sentiment of Ireneus, proving from 



96 MR. Sabine's proofs op a 

this very instance, that souls, when they have put off the 
body, do yet preserve the shape or character of the 
body to which they were united; as Tertullian before 
from the same instance had inferred, the shaj^e and cor- 
poreal lineaments^ and also Thespesias returning to life 
represents the colours of souls, and saith that there be 
ulcers and scars of their passions left upon them by 
which they are discerned. Whereas they who renounc- 
ed these opinions as false and ridiculous, declared that 
this was not an history, but only a representation; that 
after the separation of the soul from the body, she could 
receive no advantage from any man, and that it was 
foolish to think it an history; and this they also gather, 
because there was to be no future retribution before the 
general resurrection. And whereas against this it is ob- 
jected, That the proper name Lazarus shows it to be 
an history; it is answered, That the name Lazer, being 
only the contraction of Eliezer, is the same with Ani 
Achad, a poor man in the Gemara, as being in sense 
one that hath no help, or one who hath God only for 
his help. 2d, That though this parable contains some- 
thing suitable to the opinions of the Jetvs touching the 
state of souls after death, yet doth it not respect their 
state immediately after death, but the punishments that 
wicked men are to suffer after the resurrection of the 
dead, at the last day, saith Theophylact. For as Cicero 
says of the fables by which the poets represent the pun- 
ishment of evil souls, that though they know their bodies 
have been burnt, yet they do represent them suffering 
such things in the infernal regions, ivhich neither can 
be done nor suffered, or even understood to be so with* 
out bodies: so is it plainly here in the foreraentioned in- 
stances produced to prove this a parable." 

4th. But Mr. S. says, ^' Many of our Lords discours- 
es are introduced as parables, thus, ' he put forth a par- 
able' ' and he spoke a parable unto them," &C. and adds, 
*'not a word in holy writ about this being a parable." 
Mr. S. is rather positive about this. But this very ac- 
count of the rich man, is introduced in the very same 
way as other discourses of our Lord's. where all, yea, Mr. 
S. himself will allow are parables, though not formally 
called so. How then is it introduced? It is introduced 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 97 

thus, ^' There was a certain rich man." Let Mr. S. 
then turn to Matt, xviii, 23, where it is said " The king- 
dom of heaven is likened unto a certain king." See also 
3txii, 2. Are not these allowed to be parables, and is 
not this passage introduced in the same way ? 

Having said enough we think to prove that this is a 
parable, we shall for argument's sake admit it to be a lit- 
eral account. What then follows on Mr. S.'s views of 
this passage ? The following among other things follow. 
Abraham and Lazarus have their comfort in Hades, the 
same place where the rich man has his torments. They 
were so near, as to see, hear, and converse with each 
other. But we suppose Mr. S. teaches his children and 
his congregation, that to heaven, not hades, the righte- 
ous go at death. Does he believe that heaven is in ha- 
des, or hades in heaven, or, that they are so near each 
other as to admit conversations, &c. between the inhab- 
itants of both places. Has he forgot the scripture con- 
trast between them, '' It is high as heaven, and deeper 
than hades?" &c. Besides, has he not told us, that 
Hades, the place of future punishment, is a spiritual state 
for the disembodied spirit? Yet here, the rich man, has 
all his bodily members. For example, "he lifted up 
his eyes being in torments." Yes, but says Mr. S. 
'' not the eyes of his pampered carcass." Then it seems 
he lifted up the eyes of his disembodied spirit or souL 
The immaterial spirit then has eyes. It has also a 
tongue in this spiritual state, and it can ask for a drop of 
water to cool its tongue in the torment of material fire. 
It can ask Abraham to send Lazarus with it, and it can 
hold a conversation with Abraham, notwithstanding all its 
torment. Such are a specimen of the incongruities, and 
absurdities which Mr. S.'s literal account involves. Mr. 
S. charges me with materialism, but we think it may 
justly be said, ''Physician heal thyself." This is not 
only materializing the spirit, but the very spiritual 
state for which he contends, and indeed every thing con- 
nected with it. 

But we must be indulged in a few remarks, showing 

Mr. S.'s misrepresentations of this rich man. He calls 

him, pp. 77, 78, " A sensual sinner, a mere man of this 

world, driven away in his wickedness." And finds^ when 

13 



98 MR. Sabine's pkoofs op a 

*' too late, the sad consequences of bis infideiity and sen- 
suality." In p. 99, '' A rich man well clothed and well 
fed, and so rich that he forgot not only his own original^ 
but ail the poor he had left behind.'' Mr. S. on the 
same page, adds, ^'Nothing is said as to the morals of 
these two men, the rich man and the beggar ; their charac- 
ters respectively seem to be moddled upon their outward 
condition ; the rich man is sensual, self-important, proud, 
neglectful of the lowly ; the other is submissive, suppli- 
ant, content, humble." On these and other similar state- 
ments made, I remark, 1st, That this rich man whom 
Mr. S. sends to hell to be tormented, is not represented 
as to his character worse than that of rich Christians in 
our day. Are not they well clothed and well fed? And 
are none of them self-important, proud, and neglectful of 
the lowly? This rich man " was clothed in purpel and fine 
linen, and fared sumptuously every day." Now do not 
rich Christians just do the same? He lived in style^ and 
enjoyed his riches, and so do they. It is not said he kill- 
ed himself by his excesses, or that he lived thus on other 
people's property, or even that his riches were obtained 
by fraud and injustice. But can even as much as this 
be said of many of Mr. S.'s good Christians, whom at 
death he sends to Abraham's bosom? We allow^ Mr. 
S. perhaps does not enjoy such good fare every day, but 
we doubt if this is not more from necessity than choice. 
If our memory serves us, when he delivered his lectures, 
he was not clothed in raiment of camels hair. Nor does 
Mr. S.'s literal account, so much as insinuate the charge 
of inhumanity against this man, but the contrary, as could 
be easily shown. He is not charged with denying Laz- 
arus the crumbs from his table, ordering him to be gone 
from his gate, or sending him to the alms house, as per- 
haps some of Mr. S.'s rich Christians would do in like 
circumstarices. Even himself being judge, nothing bad 
is said of his morals. This is more than can be said of 
some Christians, whose vices are smoothed over in fune- 
ral sermons; and pompous parade at their funerals, out- 
does all said of this rich man at his death? If such go 
to heaven, it may in truth be said, that from their birth 
here to their rest in Abraham's bosom they have never 
been out of it. Nor do v/e find anv solid reason in all 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 99 

Mr. S. has said, why this rich man should be sent to a 
different place and excluded their society. Here they 
would have counted it their honor and pleasure to culti- 
vate his company. If Mr. S.'s hell is to be peopled 
with such characters, sure we are, that many good peo- 
ple are making all necessary preparation for it. Con- 
scious, perhaps of their affinity with this rich man, they 
misrepresent his character, that their identity may not 
be so readily perceived. Should my remarks be deemed 
severe it is their truth which renders them so, and not the 
language in which I have clothed them. It is Mr. S.'s 
literal account which has called them forth. I have 
merely defended this man's character against his misrep- 
resentations. If some good Christians, uj)on their oivn 
principles^ do not take warning to abandon the course 
of life which involved this man in such misery, ilie blood 
of their souls cannot be found in the skirts of my gar- 
ments. Mr. S. in concluding this discoui^se, charges me 
with denying the scriptures, because I asserted, that 
Christ only once^ and that in a parable ^ spoke of a pun- 
ishment in Hades. This almost makes him peevish. Be 
it so, it is true, he could only find it once^ and that proved 
to be only a parable, Jonah was angry, because God 
would not destroy, but spare Nineveh; and Mr. S. seems 
fretted because he cannot find his doctrine of future re- 
tribution more plainly taught in the Bible. But so far 
from denying the scriptures, I have expressly declared, 
that I am wilhng to believe his doctrine, if it can only 
be found once taught in scripture. If Mr. S. could 
have found it more than once^ either in a parable or in a 
narrative, charity forbids us thinking he would have 
concealed it. 

LECTURE V. 

Mr. Sabine, in concluding his last discom'se^ says, 
^* Gehenna punishment will be 'our next topic.'' He 
calls this Lecture, *' Punishment in a future state fur- 
ther considered." His text is, Matt, x, 28; and Luke 
xii, 4, 5, which will be noticed in their place. He 
commences this discourse, by blaming me for want of 
precision in speaking of Sheol and Hades. I am accus? 



100 MH. Sabine's proofs of a 

ed of blending the grave ^ with the place or state of the 
immortal spirit. But has he proved, that Sheol or 
Hades, is the place of the immortal spirit ? No; and 
we are bold in saying he never will be able to prove it 
a place of either temporary, or endless misery for th^ 
immortal spirit. His attempt to do this has only tended 
to convince me, that it cannot be done. But I am also 
blamed for using the word place instead of state.> in 
speaking on this subject. But why blame me for this, 
when all good orthodox people, have spoken of it so, 
time immemorial, and is yet their language in their 
preaching and conversation. It is Mr. S. who deserves 
to be censured, for his departure from orthodox phrase- 
ology, yea, shrinking from a defence of their doctrine 
of endless misery. His Presbyterian brethren, yea, the 
whole orthodox body, ought to make him stand on the 
^tool of repentance J and receive a public rebuke for his 
conduct. But it seems also, that I cannot manage my 
* Inquiry,' unless I am permitted to '' localize, and ma- 
terialize spiritual things." And what have good ortho- 
dox people been doing for ages but this? Have they not 
localized hell, and materialized it also, when they have 
described it as a place of literal fire and brimstone? 
Yea, even in the present day, prints of it are handed 
about, and exhibited to the sick and dying, for their 
comfort or misery in this condition. Hell has been 
preached as o, place., and di place of fire and brimstone^ 
so much, that people are really sick of hearing it. Is 
he become ashamed of his orthodox doctrine? But Mr. 
3. gives us his reasons for considering hell not a place 
but ^ state. They are the following. 1st. It is more 
congenial with the subject. This he asserts without any 
attempt at proof, and in opposition to orthodox preach- 
ers and writers, for many ages on the subject. In this 
he departs from past, yea present orthodoxy, for preach- 
ers of this class speak of hell as a place, as their hear- 
ers can testify. 2d. To speak of hell as a state., comes 
nearer to the scripture mode of speaking of this doctrine. 
This is not true, as we bave shown, and as every one 
?fnay see, by consulting all the texts where hell is spoken 
pi in the Bible. But if Mr. S. thinks state is coming 
nearer to the Bible mode of speaking of hell, why doe;^ 



\ 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 101 

he not come altogether to it? Why shift his ground, and 
not come at once on to scripture ground about this? He 
says, '' If it were a place merely we should see it.'' It 
seems then heaven cannot he a place, for we do not see 
it. But we should think, that if Mr. S.'s "'disembodi- 
ed spirits^^ are not everyivhere^ nor no ivhere^ they must 
be someivhere, 3d. But Mr. S. tells us what he means 
by state. He says, it is nothing within the " wide range 
materiality." His description of what it is, is telling 
us what it is not. He says, " I am sorry to deal in such 
truisms, and to triile with this audience." Well he 
might; but it was his departure from orthodoxy, which 
demands it, and not my book, which he undertook to re- 
fuie. But in direct opposition to him we observe, 1st, 
To speak of Sheol, Hades, &lc. as a place, is more 
agreeable to the scriptures, than to speak of it as a state. 
It i3 no where spoken of in scripture as a state, as the 
passages obviously show. The scriptures say, Man giv* 
eth up the ghost and where is he? Mr. S. would say, 
he is no where, he is only in a state. Let him consider 
also, that man is to be raised from the dead, and where 
then will he be? He would say no where, but in a state. 
He has no locahty, occupies no space. In a future 
world all is state, and nothing else, with him. But is 
this either being orthodox or scriptural? Jesus Christ 
said, John xiv, 2, " I go to prepare a place for you;" 
but had Mr. S. been present, he could have told him 
that he was mistaken, for he was only to prepare a state 
for them. Besides, Jesus Christ is in no place, for he 
adds, " That where I am there ye may be also," What 
a pity our friend Mr. S. had not volunteered himself to 
write the Bible, as he did to ansv/er my book. But She- 
ol, Hades, or Hell, is always spoken of in language 
which indicates place. Let the texts w^hich speak of 
Sheol, Hades, &c. be examined, and no one, we think, 
can dispute this, except Mr. S. who we shall see eveA 
cannot keep clear of place after all his exertions. 2d. 
It is more agreeable to common sense, to speak of She- 
ol or JIades, as a place than as a state. Admit the dis- 
tinction which Mr. S. makes between place and state, 
yet does not the common sense of men, always attach 
the idea of locality or place to apy creature as well as 



102 MR. sabine's proofs of a 

that of state? Indeed, it is impossible to think, or speak 
of them without a reference to place. But according 
to him, creatures in another world, have no relation to 
space, place, or locality. In this he makes them God, 
who from his being everywhere, can properly speaking 
have no relation to place, yet is represented to us as in 
heaven, which even conveys the idea of place. Crea- 
tures are finite, and must be confined to some place. 
Mr. S. contends for the disembodied spirit suffering in 
another world. Before it was disembodied it was in 
some place; wlien disembodied, it must go somewhere, if 
not made an everywhere spirit. If it is not either of these, 
but no where, is it not out of all existence? But that 
Sheol, Hades, or Hell, is a place rather than a state, is 
evident from what Mr. S. himself has said. He says 
of the rich man, p. 90, that he was " in a positive state, 
in Hades ^ in torments^ in a state of misery. "^^ Torments 
or misery describe the state of this man, and he says 
this was in Hades, as the place where he endured it. 
Has he not all along been contending, that there is a 
future retribution or punishment, and also a future state 
of blessedness? Well, where is his future punishment 
to be? Has he not also contended, that it is m Sheol or 
Hades. He has tried to avoid place, but after all he 
cannot avoid it. In p. 90, he calls Hades expressly, 
^' The invisible place. ^^ But he adds, " A place which 
no mortal eye hath seen or can see resolves itself into 
state." Strange ! Must not the invisible God then re- 
solve himself into a state, for no eye hath seen him nor 
can see him. Indeed, it is not easy for a man to avoid 
what is so much in agreement with scripture, common 
sense, and established opinion. He says, "If it were 
a place we should see it.'^ Indeed, can there be no 
place in God's vast creation hid from mortal eyes? We 
might say in return, If it were a state we should feel it. 
But how is he to dispose of the body, which he says is 
to be destroyed in Gehenna? If it is not a place but a 
state, will he be kind enough to tell us, how it is to be 
punished wiUiout a place. If his disembodied spirit can, 
how is the body to be so also, for we should think it 
must occupy some place. Mr. S. must either then ad- 
mit the idea of place, or assert, that body and soul are to 



FtTTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 103 

be punished, but punished in no place, no not anywhere 
in the universe of God. But most people would think- 
that this was arriving at annihilation or no future pun- 
ishment, only by a different route. Mr. S. proceeds 
to illustrate, that hell is not a place, but a state, by 
again introducing the parable of the rich man and Laz- 
arusv But as nothing new is advanced, and having said 
enough already on this, it deserves no further attention. 
I must, however, give him credit for telling his readers, 
that he doubts the sincerity of my reasonings^ and that 
I '' only intended to show the credulity of the human 
mind, in proposing the most palpable sophisms, for anti- 
retributionists to receive, and ther-eby expose their sys- 
tem to defeat and contempt.'' My reasoning can have 
no weight, but wdth persons, who, through ignorance, 
weakness or prejudice, are prepared to receive any 
thing," We thank him for his politeness, and if a^ee- 
able to him, when he writes again he w-ould be pleased 
to give his readers my "palpable sophisms" with his re- 
marks, and then leave them to judge for themselves. It 
could not injure his cause, if it be good, to lay entirely 
aside this mode of defending it. 

In page 91, &c. Mr. S. enters on the consideration of 
the term Gehenna. It occurs tw^elve times in the New 
Testament, and the passages where it is found, have all 
been fully considered in the " Inquiry." Only two of 
those Mr. S. condescends to notice. His first is, Matt. 
V. 22, 29, 30, which he neither attempts to explain, how 
it proves his punishment in a future state, nor to refute 
what I have said, showing that it does not. My expla- 
nation of this text. Matt, xxiii, 33, Mark ix, 43 — 45, 
and other passages, he very prudently avoids. Nor does 
he attempt to controvert the two sections of facts, show- 
ing that Gehenna was not used to express eternal mise- 
ry in another world. Why he so cautiously avoided 
these and other things in my book it is not for me to say. 

The circumstances which Mr. S. details in pages 93, 
94, relative to Gehenna, are little more than have been 
stated in my book. He substantially agrees with me, so 
far as he goes, abbut Gehenna. He even agrees with 
me, that it is an emblem of punishment. But what pun- 
ishment ? is the question at issue between us. He con- 



i04 MR. sabinb's proofs of a 

tends, that this punishment is in a future world. Pages 
95, 96 are employed in bold unsupported assertions con- 
cerning this. We cannot spare room, or we would pre- 
sent them as a literary, controversial curiosity to our 
readers. None, or ail of them may be true, or they may 
be false, but we must receive them on his authority y 
without so much as an attempt at proof. All these as- 
sertions, respecting Gehenna punishment, being in a fu- 
ture state of existence, we have proved false in the 
^' Inquiry," which evidence he quietly passes by in si- 
lence. But what is worse, he considers that these two 
pages of assertions, "is in the light of the Holy Spirit," 
as any one may see who reads them in connexion with 
the succeeding paragraph. But, in the light of this Ho- 
ly Spirit, Mr. S. informs us, that Gehenna is used by 
*'our Saviour as an emblem of future punishment to the 
wicked, soul and body.^^ It is however too late in the 
day, to make such a bundle of assertions pass for the 
light of the Holy Spirit. Let him look, let his 7'eaders 
look at these two pages of assertions, and say, if he 
would have made them, could he have found proof of his 
subject. We doubt if the present century, furnishes on 
any controverted point, so many assertions crowded to- 
gether in the same compass, without less attempt at 
proof. If he could not find proof, that Gehenna was an 
emblem of future punishment to the wicked, soul and bo- 
dy, we wonder he did not attempt to invalidate the evi- 
dence which was adduced in the " Inquiry" that it was 
not. We v^^ould only observe in passing, that if this is 
the way orthodoxy is to be defended, let its friends cease 
to mourn over people's departure from it. 

On page 97, Mr. S. says, '' 1st, Mr. B. declares, over 
and over again, that the Old Testament writers knew 
nothing about future punishment." Perfectly correct, 
if by future punishment he means punishment in another 
world of endless duration, for my book was written to 
show, that endless misery in hell was not correct, as the 
orthodox have long affirmed. But Mr. S. says further,- 
" 2d, What our inquirer says upon the article of Gehen- 
na being slu emblem of punishment must now be consid- 
ered." After quoting from my book Mr. S. states the 
result of my views thus. '^Hinnoin or Tophet was used 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 105 

by the prophet (Jeremiah, chapters 19th and 7th) as an 
emblem of future temporal punishment to the Jems as 
a nation.^^ We thank Mr. S. for once stating my 
views fairly. Let us now see how he disposes of them^ 
Calhng in the aid of Crabb's Syronymes, he tries to 
prove, that the earthen bottle, and not Tophet, was made 
the emblem of temporal punishment to the Jews. But a 
recurrence to the above passages, is sufficient to show 
how unsuccessful his labor is. Jeremiah xix, 3, 4, 5, 
reads thus, *' Hear ye the word of the Lord, O kings of 
Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Thus saith the 
Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold, I will bring 
evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his 
ears shall tingle : Because they have forsaken me, and 
have estranged this place, and have burnt incense in it 
unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers 
have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this 
place with the blood of innocents : They have built also 
the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for 
burnt-offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor 
spake it, neither came it into my mi^d." According to 
Mr. S.'s views of the emblem, the next verse ought to have 
read thus, as the .inference from the three preceding. 
^' Therefore thou shalt break the bottle in the sight of 
the men that go with thee." But no; the inference is, 
* 'Therefore, behold the days come, saith the Lord, that this 
place shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the 
son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter." See also 
verses 7, 8, 9. At verse 1, 2, the prophet was to tak« of 
the ancients of the people with him out to the valley of 
Hinnom, which was the most horrid place known to a 
Jew. There, in the hearing of those men, he described 
the crimes of the Jews, aoid on the spot, referred them 
k) this place as an emblem of the miseries in which they 
would involve the nation. Why go out to this place, if 
the bottle only was to be the emblem, as Mr. S. affirms? 
Jeremiah might have broken it in his own house before 
them as well as there. Let him inform us for what pur* 
pose they went out to Taphet, or the valley of Hiijnom, 
if it was not made an emblem ; or why it is spoken of 
at ail on this occasion, if his views be correct. Mr. S. 
misht have seen, froiji verses 10, 11, that the breakiij^ 
14 ^ A, 



106 MR. SABINE^S PROOFS OF A 

of the bottle, was used by the prophet as an emblem of 
the breaking of the Jewish nation to pieces, but Tophet 
was used as an emblem of the dreadful miseries of the 
people when it took place. ''How strange ! a man of 
Mr. S.'s sagacity should not see this." 

Mr. S.'s courage never fails him in the way of asser- 
tion, for in p. 100 he gives us half a page more of as- 
sertions, that ^^ Our Saviour applies the valley of Hin- 
nom under the phrase Gehenna, a state of punishment 
for ' soul and body' in the future world. ^' If assertions 
are proof> sure we have them in the greatest variety and 
abundance. If we are not edified or instructed, we are 
at least amused by them, and the paragraph which imme- 
diately follows them. Mr. S. says, "If what we have 
offered on Hinnom guilt and punishment be satisfactory^ 
then We need not take up your time in going over all 
Mr. B.'s reasons on Gehenna ; for if his principles be 
false his deductions must be so: that his position of the 
emblem is unsafe is pretty clear, and equally clear the 
position we have taken, namely, that Gehenna punish- 
ment literally is a figure of future punishment morally. 
But it will be well, before we quite dismiss this article, 
to show you some of the difficulty into which Mr. B. 
has brought himself by assuming this position, and the 
advantage we gain thereby." Could my friend Mr. S. 
think that his assertions offered could be satisfactory to 
any rational being ? Such assertions, however, save him 
all trouble; '' We need not take up your time in going 
over all Mr. B.'s reasons on Gehenna." He ought 
to have considered, that his hearers and readers were 
not so much concerned about having their time saved^ 
as to have the book answered. Mr. S. here shows 
his wisdom and prudence not to entangle himself among 
my reasons. But it seems there was no need to da 
this, for if my principle be false, my deductions must 
be so. But, says Mr. S. in the above quotation, " that 
his position of the emblem is unsafe is pretty clear." 
How clear it now is, let Mr. S. himself judge. But 
he adds, it is " equally clear the position we have 
taken, namely, that Gehenna punishment literally is a 
figui-e of future punishment morally." And from what 
is this clear? We call on Mr. S.'or any one elscr to 



FUTURE HETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 10-7 

point out from what it can be clear but his own asser- 
tions, for 1^0 attempt is even made to prove it. But by 
assuming the position, that Gehenna punishment refer- 
red to the punishment which came on the Jewish nation, 
it seems I have brought myself into difliculty, and Mr. 
S. has gained an advantage thereby. Well, let us see 
the difficulty on the one hand, and the advantage on the 
other. My difficulty is, that I am obliged to explain 
away, and get rid of every passage of scripture, which 
militates against my position, Why could not Mr. S. have 
given his readers my explanation of the words '^ damna- 
tion of hell,'^ Matt, xxiii, 33, &.c. and others as a spe- 
cimen of explaining away the scriptures. Why could 
he not have given my reasons and explanations to his 
readers, to show how absurd they are? Would not this 
have been the best way of exposing my error? But the only 
texts, out of the twelve places where Gehenna occurs, 
and on which he builds his Gehenna punishment, are the 
following, and were chosen as his text; Matt, x, 28, and 
Luke xii, 4, 5, " And fear not them which kill the bov 
dy, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him 
which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 
■ ' And I say unto you, my friends, he not afraid of them 
that kill the body, and after that have no more that they 
can do; but I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: 
fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast 
into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him." 1st, These 
two texts were very fully considered in the '' Inquiry," 
where it was frankly stated that they were the only two 
passages, which presented any difficulty to my views of 
Gehenna punishment. But taking into view, the sense 
in which our Lord used the term Gehenna in Matt. 
xxiii, Mark ix, and other places, we could not conclude, 
that a place of endless misery could be intended by this 
word in these two texts. Besides, this view was utterly 
irreconcilable with the indisputable facts, which we stat- 
ed concerning Gehenna. If Mr. S. can refute my ex- 
planations of Matt, xxiii, 33, Mark ix, 42, &c. and re- 
concile his views with those facts, we are sorry he did 
not attempt it. We presume the difficulties here were 
felt, but he is not frank enough to own it. Let our 
readers turn to chap. 2d, sects. 2d and 4th of tl\e Inquiry, 



108 MR. SABINE^S PROOFS OF A 

and judge if they do not present difficulties to Mr. S.'s 
views, which he does not attempt to meet, and which I 
think no man ever will be able to reconcile with the 
orthodox doctrine, that hell is a pla<;e of endless misery; 
nor with even temporary misery in another world. 2d. 
The difficulty, which these two texts presented to my 
view of Gehenna, was fairly stated in the ^'Inquiry,'' 
and we endeavoured as fairly to meet it. In reference 
to what I stated, Mr. S. says, that by the " ingenuity of 
criticism,'' I divert people from the common sense of 
the passage. But does he attempt to show the criticism 
to be false? No, nor does he inform his readers what it 
is. Yea, will he risk his reputation as a scholar and pub- 
lic teacher, to deny that it is just? It was shown that the 
difficulty in these two texts, arose from its peculiar phra- 
seology, which, we attempted to show was a Hebrew idi- 
om. Mr. Sv has not the candour to confess that it is, if 
he thought so, nor has he the boldness to deny it. 3d. 
In my explanation of these two texts, I maintained, and 
do now maintain, that by fpsuhej soul in them, was not 
intended the immortal spirit, but natural life. Even Mr, 
S. p. 103> admits that fpsuhej soul is "often used to 
express mere natural or animal life.'' He then asks, 
^' But does Mr. B. offer this for proof, that soul means 
merely animal life in this plape?" We did not offer this 
alone as proof, as Mr. S. knows. We offered also as 
proof, the general usage of nephish and psuhe^ rendered 
life and soul in the Bible. We offered further as proof, 
that psuhe was used to express mere natural life in the 
context of these very passages. We further offered as 
proof, that there, was nothing more strange in its being 
said, that God w^as able to destroy soul and body in Ge- 
henna, than, that the Saviour's soul was not left in Ha- 
des. Thes^, and other proofs, together with the He- 
brew idiom already mentioned, we did offer as proof, that 
soul meant in these texts natural life, and not the immor- 
al spirit. We are sorry our friend Mr, S, so slightly 
passes over theni. We shall presently offer him some 
more proofs of thi§, which may probably make him regret ^ 
that he did not pass over these two texts, as he has oth- 
ers, ar^d the facts in the ' Inquiry.' But Mr. S. says^ 
th^t I prpve nothing, v^nl^^i^ J ptQve that pstjhe in tb^ 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED^. KB 

above texts does mean animal life. We thought the 
proofs, stated at length in the Inquiry just hinted at, were 
proofs ofi;his. It is however a bad rule, which will not 
work both ways. I say then, " Mr. S. proves nothings 
unless he proves, that psuhe or soul in the above texts, 
does mean the immortal spirit." This is his doctrine 
from them, and he is bound to prove it. But he has 
also got my proofs to the contrary to disprove. Le^ 
him attempt this, for my proofs are certainly equal at least 
to his bare assertions. Besides, if Matthew meant by soul 
the immortal spirit, as Mr. S. affirms, it is beyond a doubt 
that Luke is very deficient in his account of this matter. 
Aware of this, he plays with the word deficiency, p. 102, 
to amuse his readers. Had Luke been the only histori- 
an, what proof could he find in the passage for his sys- 
tem? It is founded on the peculiar phraseology of Mat- 
thew, and to this Mr. S. clings as his hope for safety, 
regardless of all the evidence we produced. But he will 
presently see, that this is a forlorn hope, and that he is 
too self-confident to affirm, that I cannot produce proof 
that psuhe, soul, in the text in question does not mean 
the immortal spirit. The proof I did adduce we thought 
might have at least satisfied him, who admits, p. 104, that 
this word is of ^'very various application," and does 
mean '^ person, animal life, &lc." But Mr. S. affirms, 
that psuhe " likewise frequently signifies the rational 
immortal mind." This he attempts to prove from Heb. 
X, 39, 1 Peter i. 9, 3 John 2. He tells us that " these 
are only two or three instances among a great many, 
showing that soul CpsuheJ often means the spiritual, im- 
j^aortal part." Whether these proofs are to his purpose, 
and whether he might not have read them life or person 
in a public asse^lbly^ will also be seen in its place. 

But Mr. S. goes on, p. 104, to inform his readers, that 
to make good my argument about soul f psuhe J not sig- 
nifying the immortal spirit, I have pursued "the same 
heivildering and deceptive course in regard to pneuma.^^ 
What a pity Mr. S. cannot learn to be a little more civil. 
But to proceed ; he adds, '' He asserts, or rather insin- 
uates, that when the immortal part of man is intended, 
pneuraa'i^ used, and not psuhe; but this is quite as wide 
of the truth as the ^ther criticisTait'' As proof of the 



110 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

former he refers to Luke viii, 35. Here Mr. S. says, 
^'■Pneuma is applied to both, animal life, and immortal 
life.'' Well, allowing that it is, but is psuhe applied to 
both th^se? He >vill find this not so easily proved, as we 
shall show presently. Unless he does prove this, pneuma 
being apphed to both does not affect the argument, for 
this was never denied by me. But he further informs 
his readers, " Mr. B.'s cause must be desperate, or he 
v/ould not catch at such straws." When once I have 
got to the end of this discourse he shall see whose cause 
is desperate. We wish to let him have his course with- 
out interruption to its consummation. But Mr. S. fur- 
ther says, I was not " fully aware of the absurd conse- 
quences involved in the proof.'' What then are they? 
He adds, " Jesus is made to speak in this manner, ' Pear 
not them which kill the animal life, but are not able to 
kill the animal life, but rather fear him which is able to 
destroy both animal life and animal life in gehenna," 
This would indeed be an absurd consequence, but it hap- 
pens to be one drawn from Mr. S.'s own alteration of the 
text. In p. 205 of the Inquiry, I have said, that the 
text, on my views of the word soul, would then read thus, 
" Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to 
kill the life: but rather fear him who is able to destroy"^ 
both life and body in hell." That I proved a distinction 
to be made, not only between soul and body in scripture^ 
but even between these and the pneuma, spirit, Mr. S. 
does not deny. That by the body, or whole body, both 
soul and body were included, few will question who com- 
pares all the passages in reference to this subject. What 
I have said about man being able to kill the body, but 
Bot being able to kill the soul, or life, or to prevent this 
person living again, Mr. S. does not attempt to refute. Let 
our readers then judge, if his "absurd consequenGe"follows 
from any thing I have said on the subject ; and they may 
also see how candid and fair my opponent is. We have 
now followed Mr. S. in his course, throughout this dis- 
course on Gehenna punishment, and shall submit a few 
remarks on the whole of it, for candid consideration. 

1st. Why did Mr. S. pass over all the other texts in 
which Gehenna occurs, with my explanations of them, 
and merely fix on Matt, x, 28, and Luke xii, iv, 5 ? 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED-.- Ill 

Why did he not take up Matt, xxiii, 33, and Mark ix^ 
42—49, and discuss them? Why did he pass over in si- 
lence those texts which constituted the bone and sinew of 
my interpretations? Is it like the champioB of the armies 
of the living God, thus to avoid combat with texts and 
explanations, which constitute the ground- work of the 
book, and make a defence of his system from the pecul- 
iar language of a single passage ? Why did he not march 
up to my strong holds in view of the whole army, and 
show himself mighty in demolishing them ? 2d, Will 
Mr. S. be kind enough to inform us, what could be his 
reasons, that he avoided all combat with my two sections 
of facts in regard to Genenna ? He was told in the In- 
quiry, that they were a phalanx of difficulties agaiiist 
the common views of Gehenna punishment. But -the 
carefully avoids coming into contact with them. Was he 
dismayed at their appearance ? If not, why did he not 
blxak boldly through them, and route the whole in the 
majesty of his strength? Let him say himself, if the 
slightest victory can be obtained over my book, until this 
phalanx is destroyed. While it remains, and my expla- 
nations of Matt, xxiii and Mark ix, not met and refuted, 
my book remains' unassailed; yea, unassailable. Mr. S. 
had sense enough to see where my strength lay, and be 
carefully avoids that part of my .book. 3d. Mr. S. con- 
tends for a future retribution in another world. We have 
seen him, in a former discourse, contend for Hades; and 
here he has been contending for Gehenna. Does he 
make these two states or one? One future retribution he 
does contend for, and that is in another world ; but cer- 
tainly he must see, that the scripture ropresentations of 
Hades and Gehenna are very different. But throughout 
the six lectures, I perceive not a sentence which would 
lead one to suppose that Mr. S. views them as two states 
or places of punishment. He does not say, that Hades 
is an intermediate state of punishment for the soul separ 
rate from the body, and Gehenna for both soul and body 
after the resurrection. No, not a word is said about this. 
He is so intent upon establishing his new orthodox theo- 
ry, that texts of scripture, scripture distinctions, yea, 
every thing which stands in his way, must bend or break 
before him. But the Bible remains the same, and to it 
we now^ call his sober attention. 



112 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

We sincerely thank Mr. S. for calling our attention 
again to Matt, x, 28, and Luke xii, 4, 5. But for this^ 
it is probable, we should never have troubled ourselves 
with the folio vv^ing reconsideration of them. The result 
of this further investigation we shall now briefly state. 

1st. Mr. S. by the soul, or psuhe in these texts, would 
have his readers believe, that the spiritual immortal part 
of man is meant ; and by killing or distroying the souly 
is intended his punishment in a future state of existance. 
But I think I shall convince him, and every candid man, 
that this is a mistake. If the very same or similar lan- 
guage, used by the same speaker, and in the hearing of 
the same persons, be admitted as a correct exposition of 
thC' phraseology in the texts in debate, beyond a doubt 
Mr. S. is mistaken. Let us then look at Mark iii, 4. 
*' He (Jesus) saith unto them, is it lawful to do good on 
the Sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life f psuhe J 
or to kill? f'-'-apokteinai.^^ J Now, here are the same 
words for the soid^ and killing the soul, as are used in 
the texts in question, and our Lord asked the Jews, is it 
lawful to save the soul or to kill it? Let Mr. S. then 
say, if soul means here the immortal spirit, or killing 
the soul, can mean a punishment in a future state of ex- 
istence. But Luke vi, 9, is still more explicit. " Then 
said Jesus unto them, I v>^ill ask you one thing; Is it law- 
ful on the Sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? To 
save life f psuhe J or to destroy fapolesij it." Notice, 
that here is the same word for soul^ as in the preceding 
te,:^t^ and in that under consideration. What Mark ex- 
pressed by the word kill^ Luke here expresses by the 
word destroy. This varied mode of expression in the 
texts just quoted, is the same or similar to the texts un- 
der consideration, on which Mr. S. builds his punishment 
in Gehenna. Our Lord asks the question, Is it lawful 
to save the soul or to destroy it? Let Mr. S. be placed 
chief justice on the bench, surrounded by twelve ortho- 
dox jurymen, and let them say, by what rule of fair in- 
terpretation they can make it appear, that soul signifies 
the immortal spirit, and killing the soul, means a pun- 
ishment of it in a future state, in the texts under discus- 
sion, and not also in those two we have now quoted. 
Yea, I think I may safely leave it to Mr. S.'s own can- 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. Il3 

dour to say, if the}'- do not clearly show, that he is en- 
tirely mistaken in all he has said about this. In the 
texts quoted, mere natural life is meant by soul, as he 
will allow. By killing or destroying it, he will not pre- 
tend, that future punishment was meant. How then 
could this be intended by our Lord, or how could it be 
so understood by his disciples in the passages we are 
considering? Why then should he contend, that this 
was our Lord's meaning? In the one, God's ability 
or power to kill or destroy the soul is mentioned, and 
in the other, our Lord puts a question about the laivfiil- 
ness to Jcill or destroy the soul on the Sabbath day. 
Our Lord did save men's souls or lives on the Sabbath, 
and on other days. But can Mr. S. produce an instance^ 
in which God destroyed or killed a soul on any day, 
thereby meaning punishment in a future state of exist- 
ance. Whether he, therefore, holds to the doctrine of 
endless misery, or his future retribution, these two texts 
show the fallacy of both systems, as built on the pas- 
sages in question. 2d. But Mr. S. raises considerable 
noise, about* what I said concerning God's being able 
or having power to kill the soul, and its not being said 
that he would do it. We must thank him, for also 
bringing this up, for it has led us to re-examine this part 
of the passage also. He m.ust admit, for it cannot be 
denied, that the passages do not assert, that God will 
kill the soul. We would respectfully ask him, does God 
do all that he has ability or power to perform? No man 
will affirm this. How then does he know, that he will 
destroy the soul in Gehenna, for in no other text is this 
asserted. If power or abihty to do this, be equivalent 
to actually doing it, w^iy is it expressed in this way? 
But what ought to decide this, is the sense of similar 
language in other passages. In Matt, iii, 9, it is said, 
'' God is able of these stones to raise up children to 
Abraham." But did God ever do this? According to 
Mr. S.'s reasoning on the passages in question, God 
must have raised up from the stones children to Abra- 
ham, because he had power or ability to do it. But did 
he ever know any persons so raised up? We would ask 
him further, if he found it said in scripture, that God 
h2Ld power or ability to make all men for ever miserable 
15 



Il4» MR. SABINE^S PROOFS OF A 

or happy, would he conclude from this that God v/ould 
do so ? In short, God has power to do all things, he has 
power to settle in a moment the questions at issue be- 
tween us; but he suffers us to settle them in the way of 
candid and amicable discussion, by an appeal to the 
scriptures. But let it be noticed, that if he will insist 
on God's actually destroying body and soul in Gehenna, 
it is the souls and bodies of Christ's own disciples, who 
are threatened with this punishment. In no text is this 
threatened the wicked, for such language occurs in no 
other place in the Bible. Now, Mr. S.'s retribution is 
for wicked people, a thing the passages before us say 
nothing about. But his mistaken view of them, arises 
from his overlooking the persons to whom our Lord 
spake, and the design of what he said to them. It was 
to fortify the minds of his disciples against the evils they 
should be called to suffer for his name's sake. They 
were exhorted, not to fear man but God. They had 
also heard our Lord say to the unbelieving Jews, " How 
can ye escape the damnation of hell?" and the connex- 
ion of his discourse evidently pointed them to the tem- 
poral judgments coming on the nation, as the sense of 
these words. To remind his disciples, therefore, of 
God's being able to destsroy soul and body in Gehennaj 
or subject them to the same punishment as the unbeliev- 
ing Jews, was just as sufficient for this purpose, as it 
was for John to say, that God was able of the stones 
to raise up children unto Abraham. Was any thing 
more necessary, or could any thing be said more suita- 
ble than this, in such circumstances. But how will my 
friend Mr. S. ever be able to reconcile his views of these 
texts, with the two sections of facts, and the explana- 
tions of the passages given in the "Inquiry." Were 
his views correct, the facts ought to be in his favour, 
and against my views, and instead of God's ability or 
power being only stated, this would be spoken in the 
most plain and explicit manner. 3d. But allowing the 
texts to mean what Mr. S. says they do, we do not per-, 
ceive how he can make his views hang together by scrip- 
ture, reason, or facts. Does he believe, that after the 
body is killed or destroyed, that it suffers any pain or mis- 
ery? We have always thought it did not. He has said 



i 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 115 

a good deal in his discourses, showing that it does not. 
Well, how can he make it appear, that if the soul or 
spirit is killed, that it can suffer any pain or misery. 
And if hoth are killed or destroyed, how can either suf- 
fer any misery. Does the latter live to suffer after being 
killed, but not the former. He should remember that both 
alike are killed or destroyed. But further; before Mr. 
S. made such assertions, that soul and body were to suf- 
fer in Gehenna, he ought to have proved, that this state 
or place, is in another world. But this he has not done, 
nor attempted to do, though we think we proved that it 
was not. But let him have it so. If it is, he should 
remember, that both soul and body must go out of this 
world to be killed or destroyed, for they are said to be 
destroyed in Gehenna. Now, does Mr. S. beheve, 
that the body goes into another world to be killed? 
Should he fix on the parallel text in Luke xii, 4, 5, 
there only the body is said to be. killed, and after it is 
killed, it is said to be cast into hell or Gehenna. It is 
after it is killed, it goes into his state of future retribu- 
tion; but when, neither the text says, nor does Mr. S. 
in any way inform us. It cannot be, according to him, 
at death, for in another place he contends for its being 
left in the tomb or sepulchre. Mr. S.'s views then on 
this subject, are neither in unison with scripture, nor 
facts, nor are they consistent with themselves. These 
texts which he selects from all the others, and deemed 
most to his purpose, when further examined are decided- 
ly against him. In short, view them in any w^ay you 
please, they cannot support the doctrine he would fond- 
ly build upon them. Does he recur to the context, the 
word psuhe as used there is opposed to him. Does he 
recur to similar modes of expression in other places^ 
they palpably contradict his doctrine. And if he has 
recourse to the other places where Gehenna is found, 
the texts and contexts utterly forbid such a sense as he 
gives it. And above all, a phalnax of facts, relative to 
Gehenna, stand like a brazen wall, which, until refuted, 
must for ever prevent any rational man from believing 
what he says about Gehenna. 

We thought we had said enough, on these two texts 
in tho- Inquiry, to satisfy any reasonable man, that the 



116 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

apparent difficulty did not constitute any solid objection 
to my views of Gehenna, and especially when these texts 
were viewed in connexion with the others, and the facts 
which were adduced. But seeing Mr. S. laid hold of 
them as the only passages on which he could make his 
attack, we have entered into a still further examination 
of them. We would now state the result of this exam- 
ination. 

1st. The word ^lejyhish of the Old Testament, which 
is rendered life and soul, &c. is never used to express the 
spiritual part of man, or what Mr, S. calls the disem- 
bodied spirit, which at death he sends to a place or state 
of misery. On this word, Parkhurst, in his Hebrew 
Lexicon, thus writes, " JVep/iis/i hath been supposed to 
signify the spiritual part of man, or w^hat we commonly 
call his soul: I must for myself confess, that I can find 
no passage where it hath imdoubtedly this meaning. 
Gen. XXXV, 18; 1 Kings xvii, 21, 22; Ps. xvi, 10, seem 
fairest for this signification. But may not nephish in 
the three former passages be most properly rendered 
breath, and in the last a breathing or animal frameP'^ 

The passages in w^hich nephish occurs, are over three 
hundred. Our time has not permitted us to examine 
them with all that care and leisure, which we could have 
wished, but from the attention we have paid to them, 
we concur in the above statements. I may add, that 
Taylor, in his Hebrew Concordance, in giving the vari- 
ous senses of nephish in the Old Testament, does not 
intimate, that it ever means the immortal spirit, nor 
does he refer to a single text v/here it has such a mean- 
ing. If the Old Testament writers then, did not believe 
that the soul went to Sheol.to be punished, nor believed, 
that it was the immortal spirit, which existed separate 
from the body, let Mr. S. inform us how he is so 
confident of both. If they did believe both these things, 
Ist candour say, why they never ventured to say so, though 
they spake of the nephish or soul over three hundred 
times. If Mr. S. can explain this, in consistency with 
his views, we hope he will do it. Let him account for 
it, why inspired writers for so many years should say 
nothing about his disembodied spirit, and yet they knew 
pen had souls, aijd spoke as frequently and familiaj^ly 



FUTURE RETRI'BUTION CONSIDERED. Ill 

about them as we do. If inspired teachers in those 
days, knew nothing about this doctrine, how comes it to 
pass, that uninspired teachers in these, are so well 
acquainted with it. 2d. The word psuhe^ also ren* 
dered life and soul in the New Testament, corres- 
ponds to nephish in the Old, and is commonly used for 
it in the Seventy version. After an examination of all 
the texts where it is used in the New Testament, it ap- 
pears to us, that the writers there apply it in a similar 
way as nephish is applied by the Old Testament writers. 
The following are all the places where it occurs and 
may be consulted. The various senses in which I con- 
ceive it is used by the sacred writers, and how rendered 
in the common version, I shall briefly notice. 

1st. It occurs both in the singular and plural, is ren- 
dered soul and souls^ and expresses the same as the 
word person or persons. Thus, for example, we read 
Acts ii, 41, of " three thousand souls," and xxvii, 37, 
of " two hundred, three score and sixteen souls.'' See 
also 1 Pet. iii, 20; Rev. vi, 9, and xx, 4; Matt, xii, 18; 
Luke xii, 19; John xii, 27; Acts ii, 31, 43, and iii, 23; 
Rom. xiii, 1; Heb. x, 38; Acts ii, 27; Rom. ii, 9; 2 
Cor. i, 23; Jas. v, 20; Rev. xviii, 14; 1 Cor. xv, 45. 
2d. Fsuhe is rendered soul and souls in the following 
texts, and expresses the mind or some of its powders. 
Thus, as an example, it is said Matt, xi, 29, " Ye shall 
find rest unto your souls." See also Luke xxi, 19; 
Acts xiv, 22, and xv, 24; 1 Pet. i, 22-, 2 Pet. ii, 14; 
Luke i, 46; Acts 4, 32; 3 John 2; 2 Pet. ii, 8; Heb. 
vi, 19; 1 Pet. ii, 11; Matt, xxii, 37; Mark xii, 30, 33; 
Luke X, 27. Accordingly psuhe is rendered mind. 
Acts xiv, 2; Philip, i, 27; Heb. xii, 3; with which all 
the above texts may be compared. By examining the 
whole, any one may see, that in most of them, mind would 
have been a clearer and more definite rendering than soiiL 
It is rendered hearty Eph. vi, 6, and in Col. iii, 23 it is 
rendered heartily. 3d. But I find psuhe rendered life 
and lives, as expressing natural life, more frequently than 
in any other way; As an example, it is said Luke xii, 
22, 23, " Take no thought for your life." See also 
Luke ix, 5Q', Acts xv, 2^-, 1 John iii, 16; Matt, vi, 25] 
Mark viii, 35; Acts xx, 10; Philip, ii, 30; 1 Th^s. v, 23. 



118 MR. Sabine's PROOFS OF A 

Matt, ii, £0, xvi, 25, and xx, 28; Mark viii, 35, and x, 
45; Luke ii, 35, ix, 24, xiv, 26, and xvii, 33; John x, 
11, 15, 17, xiii, 37, 38, and xv, 13; Acts xx, 24; Rom. 
xi, 3; 1 John iii, 16; Rev. xii, 11; Acts xxvii, 22; Rom. 
xvi, 4; Acts xxvii, 10; Mark iii, 4; Luke vi, 9; Matt, x, 
39; Heb. iv, 12. In some of these texts the psuhe^ soul, 
or life, is expressly distinguished from both the soma^ body, 
and the pneuma, sph^it. In Rev. xviii, 13, instead of 
" slaves and souls of men," it ought to be '* bodies, so* 
maton, and souls, psukas, of men ;" or '' bodies and 
souls of men.'' In 1 Thess. ii, 8, it is rendered souls; 
but it is easily seen from the scope of the text and con- 
text, that it ought to be lives or persons ; for surely the 
apostles and those other persons, never intended to say, 
that they vi^ere willing to have imparted to the Thessa- 
lonians their immortal spirits. 4th. In the following 
texts it is not rendered at all ; 2 Cor. xii, 15, and John 
X, 24. 5th. It is rendered life and soul, and is applied 
to creatures in the sea, Rev. viii, 9, and xvi, 3. 6tii. In 
the following texts psuhe is rendered soul, and are the 
only places in which any person can suppose that this 
word is used to express the " spiritual part of man," 
or Mr. S.'s "disembodied spirit," which, he says, goes 
to Hades at death. To these we must then pay a little 
more attention. In Luke xii, it is said of one, " This 
night thy soul shall be required." But how could this 
be his spiritual part ? for ilf is the same soul, which, 
verse 19, had goods laid up fOr many years; and which, 
he said, might taks its ease, eat, drink and be merry. 
Does the spiritual part eat and drink? &,c. In Matt, xvi, 
2'S, and Mark viii, 36, a man is said not to be profited, 
if he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul. 
But the context shows, that natural life is meant, for the 
same word, psuhe, is rendered life in the verse preced- 
ing, and is so rendered even in these places by various 
translators. 

We have seen, that the word soul i* rendered mind 
in some places, and ought to be so in many others. Be- 
lievers in Jesus had purified their souls, or minds, in 
obeying the truth. We have seen that the word soul 
also means person. Those believers were once as sheep 
going astray, but had returned to the Shepherd, Bishop, 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 119 

or Overseer of their souls, minds, or persons. They 
were in his fold. See 1 Peter ii, 25. But if any one of 
them erred from the truth, or strayed from the fold, and 
one converted or turned him back to it, he saved a soul 
or person from death. James v. 20. The apostles and 
teachers were under shepherds, or overseers, to watch 
over the minds and persons of such. They were to 
watch for their souls, as they that must give account. 
Heb. xiii, 17. The lives or persons of believers were 
exposed to the most cruel persecution, and hence they 
are exhorted to commit the keeping of their souls, or 
their persons to God in well doing, as unto a faithful 
Creator, 1 Pet. iv, 19. The ingrafted word received with 
meekness, was able to save their souls or persons, James 
i, 21. Sueii are all the texts, in vfhich psuhe, rendered 
soul, could be supposed to refer to the immortal spirit, 
except the three texts, which Mr. S. produces in page 
104, to prove that it does. These we shall now intro- 
duce. His first is Heb. x, 39 ; " We are not of them 
who draw back unto perdition ; but of them that believe 
to the saving of the soul." In reading this text, it is 
forgotten by people what our Lord said. Matt, xxiv, 13, 
that " He that shall endure to the end, the same shall be 
saved ;" evidently referring to being saved from the tem- 
poral miseries which he predicted should come on the 
Jewish nation during that generation. In consequence 
of abounding iniquity, and the persecutions to which his 
disciples were to be exposed, the love of many should 
wax cold, and draw back to the perdition or destruction, 
in which the whole nation were to be involved. He that 
thus loved his life should lose it. He that turned one 
who erred from the truth, should save a soul or person 
from this death. The apostle, in the above text, was 
writing to the believing Hebrews, and he told them, 
verse 36, that they had need of patience under their tri- 
als. That it was but a little while when Jesus would 
come as he had foretold. Matt, xxiv, to relieve them, v. 37. 
Some had drawn back already. See verse 25. But in 
the verse under consideration, he says to those steadfast 
in the faith, '' We are not of them who dray/ back unto 
perdition, but of them who believe to the salvation of our 
soul§, lives or persons." Those who did endure to the 



120 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

end, left the city of Jerusalem, and were saved, as w&- 
showed in the Inquiry. Those who hated their life in, 
this world kept it unto life eternal, John xii, 25, Mr. 
S.'s second text is, 1 Peter i, 9, " Receiving the end of 
your faith the salvation of your souls.'' The same or 
similar remarks apply to this text, as to the last, and 
need not be repeated. Is it objected to this, "' Was this 
kind of salvation, that for which the prophets inquired and 
searched dilligently, mentioned in verse 10?" We an- 
swer, yes, this was a part of it, as is evident from Joel ii, 
32, and other places in the prophets. Mr. S.'s third 
text is, 3 John 2, "■ Beloved I wish above all things that 
thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul 
prospereth." How he could quote this text to prove, 
that soul here means the immortal spirit, is to me strange. 
Gains' bodily health seems to have been poor, and the 
apostle expresses his kind wish, that it might be like his 
soul, in a prosperous state. What soul then did he mean? 
I answer, simply his mind, which is the sense of the word 
psuJie^ rendered soul in other places. This sense of the 
word soul, is evident from verses 3, 4, 5, 6, which de- 
scribes, how the apostle knew that his soul or mind did 
prosper. The views I have stated on all the above texts, 
is confirmed, from comparing them with the following, 
in which psuhe is rendered both life and soul, Mark viii, 
35, 36, 37; Matt, xvi, 25, 26; Luke ix, 24, 25, 

On the whole of these passages in which psuhe occurs, 
and in whatever way rendered in the common version, I 
would now beg leave to submit a few brief remarks. 

1st. All must see, that it is variously rendered by ouir 
translators. In reading the New Testament, therefore, 
people would do well to consider from the context where 
the word is rendered soul, if some of its other renderings 
v/ould not be much more suitable to the scope of the wri- 
ter. We have been accustomed, to attach the idea of 
an immortal spirit, which leaves the body at death, to the 
word soul J and if I am not much mistaken, this leads to 
a misunderstanding of many passages in which this word 
occurs. 

2d. The word psuhe in the New, not only corresponds 
to nephish, rendered life, soul, person, &,c. in the Old 
Testament, but the writers of the New have adopted 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. li^l 

the Hebrew idioms of the Old in many places wherfe 
they use it. We think the more the two Testaments 
are compared the truth of this remark will he apparent* 
It is now evident, that Mr. S. has built his ideas of Ge- 
henna punishment on the mere Hebrew idiom of the pas^ 
sages in question, and it has been shown from parallel 
texts where the same idiom occurs, that they are with- 
out any solid foundation. 

3d. In our classification of the texts where psuhe oc«^ 
curs, we have perhaps classed some of them wrong. Fot 
example, where psuhe means the natural life, we may 
from ignorance, or oversight have placed such texts undet 
the head where it means the mind, or some one of its 
powers; or the reverse. About this we were not scru- 
pulous, as we gave all the places where the word is founds 
that all may read and judge for themselves. It will be 
seen immediately, that such scrupulous care was not neces- 
sary in regard to the grand point under discussion between 
Mr. S. and myself in his discourses. 

4th. Let not Mr. S. or any of his orthodox friends 
Suppose, that it is necessary for me to deny, that nephish 
br psuhe, rendered soul, means the immortal spirit, in 
supporting my views. No, we have merely stated this 
as our present opinion, from the examination which we 
have given the passages in which these words occur. 
We are willing, for the sake of avoiding all controversy 
on this point, to allow that they do mean the immortal 
spirit. Yea, we will even suppose, that in every instance 
t)f their occurence in the Bible, that this is their meaning. 
This is more than he would think necessary. Let him 
then notice, 

5th, That in no text where either of these words is 
tised, is it said the nephish, psuhe, or soul, is in punish- 
ment, or that it shall suffer misery in another world. 
We call on Mr. S. or any of his friends to come for- 
ward, and show in a single instance, that the soul when 
disembodied goes into another state of existance, to be 
punished in Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, or in any 
other place or state in the whole universe of God. We 
demand of him to produce only one text in which it is 
said, that the disembodied sperit is in misery any where. 
Does he recur to the parable of the rich man and Laza- 
IG 



122 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

rus? But let him say himself, if a word is said about 
the soul or disembodied spirit in the whole passage. 
Now, this was the very point he ought to have proved. 
But no such thing is stated; but on the contrary, every 
thing in the whole parable, proceeds on the principle of 
Ms body being in Hades, and not his disembodied spirit, 
as has been shown. We then appeal to Mr. S.'s own 
candour, and common sense about this. If nephish, 
psuhe, or soul, expresses the immortal spirit, which at 
death is sent to Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna, to 
suffer misery, how does he account for it, that Hot in a 
single text, is this said by any sacred writer. If they 
did not assert this, how dares he affirm it? If they all as 
one man are silent on the subject, why is he so very con- 
fident about it? If in the course of three hundred times 
using the word mp'-is'i^ the Old Testament WTiters sug- 
gest no such idea, from what part of their writings does 
he derive his information? Our readers may count at 
their leisure, how often the New Testament writers use 
the word psuhe, but not in a single text can Mr. S. find, 
that the soul, bodied or disembodied, goes to a state or 
place of misery in another world to be punished, as he 
very confidently affirms. Pause, sit down dehberately, 
and reflect, friend Sabine, about this. Think soberly, 
whether you have not received this doctrine by tradition 
from your fathers. Whence else could it^come if no sa- 
cred writer has taught it? Do not accuse me of defying 
you, or the armies of the living God about this. I defy 
neither, but respectfully ask you, to name the text from 
Genesis to Revelation, where the Spirit of God has 
taught, that the soul or disembodied spirit, goes any 
where to suffer misery. 

It is now seen, how very much mistaken Mr. S. is, in 
affirming, that the '' disembodied spirit" is sent to Sheol, 
JIades, Tartarus or Gehenna, to suffer punishment, either 
at death or at any other period. The mistake is increas- 
ed, if I am correct in my opinion, that neither nepkish 
YiOT psuhe, is used by ary sacred writer to express the 
immortal spirit. Parkhurst, an orthodox critic affirms, 
that mphish is not used in this sense in the Old Testa- 
ment, though it occurs there over three hundred times. 
In giving us the different meanings of the word psuhe in 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 123 

the New, Matt, x, 28, is the only text he refers to, that 
this word signifies the human soul or spirit. This text, 
is the foundation of Mr. S.'s doctrine of Gehenna pun- 
ishment, and we are almost confident that he will now 
allow it is left without any foundation from this passage. 

We would suggest it respectfully to Mr. S. and all of 
the same views with him, to examine whether these 
things I have stated be so, before they assert any more, 
that the disembodiel spirit at death is sent to " scenes 
of misery," not to say endless in their duration. Let 
them reflect, if it be not rash to do so, when God him- 
self has not said this in any part of his revelation to the 
children of men. Our readers then, have the means be- 
fore them, of judging of the weakness or solidity of tie 
foundation of Mr. S.'s doctrine of " punishment for the 
disembodied spirit" in Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Ge- 
henna. We think we have candidly examined this sub- 
ject, and have shown, that Mr. S. is much mistaken lit 
his views of it. We allow, that the doctrine he contends 
for is old, and is yet very popular. But it appears not 
to be old enough, not being taught in Scripture. Let 
no one say that this is a bold assertion. The evidence 
of it we have stated, as fully as our limits would permit, 
and we request either Mr. S. or any of his friends to 
show our statements to be false. 

6th. But we add, '' We shall feel obliged to Mr. S. 
or any other man, to prove from the Bible that the fne- 
phish^ psuhej soul, or the fpneiimaj spirit, or any part 
of man, goes to any place or state at death and suffers 
punishment in any degree." We shall allow him to call 
it place, or state, or by any name he pleases. We shall 
even allow him, to hold to temporary or endless misery, 
as best suits his own inclination. Only let him prove, 
that the whole man, or any part of him after death, is in 
a state of pain or misery, in any part of the universe of 
God. Such are the terms we offer, and surely if Mr. 
S. had them to make, he could not well make them more 
liberal or convenient. We have frankly but briefiy 
stated the result of our further investigation of these two 
texts. It remains for him to disprove what we have now 
advanced. 



124« MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

' Against these statements Mr. S. will likely object, 
1st, If these things are admitted "they lead to material- 
ism." In answer to this we would observe, that it ought 
not to concern ns, what these statements lead to, the only 
question ought to be, Are they true? Is this the doctrine 
of the Bible, or is it not? No man ought to be deterred, 
and frightened from investigating what is truth, by hold- 
ing up some bugbear consequence, which is supposed to 
follow. In this way have men often been kept from be- 
lieving God's word, and against what may it not be used 
for a similar purpose. But, such a consequence does not 
certainly follow. It may be true, that nephish and 
psuhe^ or soul, do not express the spiritual and immortal 
part of man, yet man has a spirit which survives the 
dissolution of the body. We showed in the " Inquiry," 
that a distinction was made between these, and the pneit- 
ma, spirit in scripture, which Mr. S. does not controvert. 
This spirit of a man Solomon says " goeth upward," 
Eccles. iii, 21. That "The spirit shall return to God 
who gave it," when the dust shall return to the earth, 
xii, 7. But I do not find, that any thing like this, is said 
of the nephish^ psuhe^ or soul, for which Mr. S. con- 
tends, as surviving the disolution of the body. If the 
scriptures make such a distinction, why ought we not to 
make it? And if the scriptures no where assert, that the 
soul does survive the body, but that the pneiima, spirit 
does, why does he so confidently assert it? Why not 
think, and speak on such subjects, as the inspired wri- 
ters did? 

2d. Perhaps it may also be objected, " That the sen^ 
timents advanced, does away all punishment for the ne- 
phish, psuhe, or soul in a future state, for which Mr. S. 
has been contending." In answer to this I would say, 
that if it be true, that the soul does not survive the body^ 
it is beyond all fair debate, that it cannot, in the very 
nature of the case, be punished in a disembodied state. 
It settles this question for ever, and shows, that Mr. S. 
has been contending for a doctrine, which cannot possi- 
bly be true. It also puts an end to all dispute, about 
state and place, concerning which he has made so much 
noise in his lectures; and it affords no room for discus- 
sing the duration of its punishment. All these ques- 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 125 

tfcrns, are put entirely to rest, if what I have stated 
about nephish, psuhe, or soul be correct. We may here 
notice, that supposing he could prove the existence of 
the soul after the death of the body, yet he has got it 
still to prove, that the soul is ever said in scripture to 
suffer punishment, or misery in a disembodied state. 
The last of these, we feel confident Mr. S. never will 
be ^ble to prove from any part of scripture. The first, 
we should like to see proved, if it c^n be done. Noth- 
ing said by him in his lectures, proves either of these 
things. We would urge upon him, to spend a few hours, 
in examining all the texts where mphisli, psuhe^ or soul 
is spoken of in the Bible, and see if he can find any sa- 
cred writer teach such doctrines. But notwithstanding 
this, it may still be objected, " That the pneuma^ spirit 
exists and suffers punishment or misery in its disembodi- 
ed state.'' Well, if this can be proved from scripture^ 
let it be done, for it is a matter of but little consequence, 
whether we call it soul or spirit^ if it is to be thus pun- 
ished in a future state. I beg of Mr. S. to spend a few 
hours more in examining all the texts where rit/i, pneu* 
ma, or spirit is spoken of in scripture, and if he finds a 
single text, which teaches this 1 shall feel extremely mor- 
tified at my carelessness in overlooking it. We have seen 
it said, Eccles. xii, 7, that, "The dust shall return to the 
earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who 
gave it," but no sacred writer says, that soul or spirit y 
goes at death, or at any other poriod into " scenes of 
misery;" a doctrine which my friend Mr. S. has been la- 
bouring throughout his lectures to establish. It is a pity 
that we who are but of yesterday and know nothing, 
should attempt to speak with such confidence on a sub- 
ject which is a matter of pure revelation. We think it 
would shake Mr. S.'s confidence if he could be induced 
to examine all the passages we have just recommended 
to his notice. To be sure it will cost him more time and 
labour to do this, than to make assertions, but we think 
it will amply repay him in the satisfaction afforded. 



1S6 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 



LECTURE VI. 

This Lecture is ''a review of the cour'^e '^ Mr. S. has 
pursued. He entitles it, ''Mr. Balfouh^s System op- 
posed to Divine Authority.'^ His text is Mark xii, 24, 
*' Do ye. not therefore err, becau-.e ye know not the scrip- 
tures, neither the power of God ?" In a note at the 
end of it, he says, '' The sixth and last Lecture, more 
particularly, declares Mr. Balfour's system to be in di- 
rect opposition to Divine authority.'' This he has been 
declaring in all his lectures ; but v/e have shown it is 
only declaring but not proving this. It is proofs^ not 
declarations^ we care any thing about. 

Our work here then is, to review Mr. S.'s review of 
his whole course. But, as hardly any thin;^ is said but 
what has been remarked on already, he has given us little 
to do. As to any more proofs or appeals to the scrip- 
tures, we have got to the end of that chapter. Our re- 
marks shall therefore be very brief, for we feel no great 
concern as to any thing else, but " What is truth?" on 
the subjects which have come under discussion. 

He says, page 107, that the origin of my scheme has 
arisen at the disgust I have " taken at the superstitions, 
assumpsions, errors and h3'pocricies which have mingled 
with the profession of religion." I have only to say, 
that Mr. S. in this, as in many other things, is mistaken. 
If he is not allowed to know more about this than I do, 
its origin is in an increased attention to the scriptures. 
Had I not long ago learned to make " a proper distinc- 
tion between the doctrines of revelation and the errone- 
ous and faulty way in which they have been represented 
and taught," I should have before now been an Infidel 
or an Atheist. His own orthodox creed would have had 
a hand in producing such an effect. No wonder that 
men are Infidels, who do not learn to make such a dis- 
tinction. 

In pages 107 — 109, Mr. S. reviews what he said about 
the two texts we considered in the preceding discourse, 
Matt. X, 28, and Luke xii, 4, 5. What he here says, 
is only a fresh assortment of assertions, and given in still 
more indecorous language than any thing which preceded 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 127 

them. As he sinks in argument he rises in the boldness 
of his assertions, and as he approaches the end of his 
course he becomes rather abusive. But as hard words, 
and strong arguments, are very diiferent things, we pass 
such language by, as Mr. S. has done my facts and ex- 
planations. / 

In page 110, Mr. S. says, "We have directly met 
and examined Mr. E.'s principal arguments on the deri- 
vation, uses and application of the terms Sheol, Hades 
and Gehenna. Mr. S. does not venture to say he met 
and examined, either directly or indirectly, my facts about 
the uses and application of these terms. Let our read- 
ers judge wliether he has even done what he here boldly 
asserts. 

In pages 110-112, Mr. S. seems to get into a merry 
mood about the "Inquiry,^' to which I referred in my 
book, in regard to Olim, Aion, and Aionion, rendered 
eternal, everlasting, in the common version. Presuming 
that he knows what Solomon says of a man who answer- 
eth a matter before he heareth it, we only notice, that 
my '* first book does not supercede my second," as he 
asserts. It is well known that a number of texts in 
which these words occur are quoted by the orthodox to 
prove endless misery. One great object, therefore, of 
this second ''Inquiry" is, to examine all those texts, 
and to show that thsy do not teach such a doctrine. We 
wish to show our orthodox friends wherein we think them 
mistaken about the meaning of such passages. Should 
it ever be published, perhaps it may convince him, that 
his mirth was premature, if not altogether unnecessary. 
At any rate, it will show that we did not embrace the 
views advanced, before we had considered pretty fully 
the chief texts on which our brethren build their doctrine 
of endless misery. 

In pages 112, 113, Mr. S. says, that ''Mr. B. can 
make no distinction between the nature of that punish- 
ment God inflicts on men in their collective and political 
character, and that inflicted on them in their individual 
and moral character. Nations and bodies politic, 
churches, and other associations, if rewarded or punish- 
ed, must be so dealt with in this present visible state, for 
they do not pass into the future state as nations or 



128 Mr. saBiNe's proof's 01* k 

churches, or in any other associate capacity.'' What! 
Does Mr. S. suppose that I can make no distinction be- 
tween "the nature of that punishment God inflicts'' on 
nations and on individuals ! I always made a distinction 
between the drowning of the antideluvians and the hang- 
ing of Haman. We also have thought that " bodies 
politic, churches, and other associations/' were punished 
in this visible state. And we believe so also of individ- 
uals. But Mr. S.'s doctrine is, that the latter, but not 
the former, go, and go as individuals, into a future state 
to be punished. This is what he has been trying to 
prove, but cannot accomplish. He again introduces the 
old world, the Sodomites, and the nation of the Jews as 
examples, and now says that this was "temporal punish- 
ment in the infliction of natural evil." But has he really 
forgot that he introduced these very examples to prove 
his punishment in a future state in his preceding discours- 
es? But we ask Mr. S. what does he find in the history 
of these examples, that the people either as individuals, 
or as bodies politic, went into a future state to be pun- 
ished? Let him take his choice, or let him choose both if 
he pleases, and show us, that these persons went into a 
a future state to be punished in any " capacity," either 
for "natural evil" or "moral character." There is just 
as little said about an individual going there to be pun- 
ished, as there is about a church, or a nation. Nor do 
we perceive any more impropriety, in sending churches 
and nations into a future state to suffer for their sins in 
this capacity, than to send an individual to suffer in his 
individual capacity. If the Judge of all the earth does 
right in punishing them in these capacities here, what is 
to prevent him doing the same in another state of exis- 
tence. The question is, has the Judge of all the earth 
said he will send either of them there to be punished f 
Prove either, or both of these from the Bible, and we 
are made converts to this doctrine. 

But in confirmation, Mr. S. recurs to the history 
whence his text is taken, and classes me once more with 
the Sadducees. Ignorant as they were of the scriptures 
and power of God, let him take notice, that our Lord 
did not threaten them with punishment in a future state, 
either as a sect or as individuals. Though " society is 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED* 129 

broken up and dissolved at death," let Mr. S. notice 
once more, that ocr Lord, on this occasion, did not say- 
that the bond between husband and wife was broken at 
this period, that as individuals they might go into a fu- 
ture world to be punished. " Strange that a man of 
the acuteness of our author should not see this." 

In pages 115— 20, Mr. S. proceeds to give us some 
of his reasons for his '' faith in a future state," and " a 
future state of punishment." He first reasons from the 
benevolence of Deity, that nothing " goes to weaken this 
doctrine." We have seen some attempts made, to re- 
concile endless misery with the benevolence of Deity, but 
without success. As Mr. S. does not attempt to recon- 
cile his future retribution with it, we have no means of 
judging whether he can do it or not. But 2d, he says, 
" The wicked are more obnoxious to suffering in the 
future world than they can be in the present; a disem- 
bodied state is a state of experience, and more depends 
on the mind than on matter." Mr. S. seems to be well 
acquainted with the future world. Was he ever there? 
If not, from what part of his Bible does he learn all 
this, and much more under this particular? He quotes 
no divine authrity for what he says, and from personal 
knowledge and experience, or information from such as 
have been there, we presume he knows about as little as 
we do. He has in a former lecture told us, that all we 
can know of a future state must be from divine revela- 
tion, and to this we perfectly agreed. Why then does 
he undertake to tell us so much about it, without any 
appeal to divine revelation? If I err, not knowing the 
scriptures nor the power of God, why does he not quote 
them and explain them for my instruction. I have a 
little respect left in me for the scriptures, but I have no 
respect for the mere assertions of any man, on such a 
subject as the one in question. What Mr. S. says un- 
der this particular, is a mere rhapsody of imagination, 
very unlike any thing ever uttered by any inspired wri- 
ter. His object in this is thus stated; '' In this method 
of illustration, brethren, you must have observed, that I 
have called in no aid from divine wrath to make men 
miserable. I have made a hell of sin and sinners, and 
these are the constitution of future punishment," &.c. 
17 



130 MR. SABINE^S PROOFS OF A 

See pp. 118, 119. This hell is indeed one of his own 
making, and in the same way this one was made, he 
could make any quantity which might be reiquired. Any 
man, not destitute of fancy and imagination, could do 
this, but is he not afraid to indulge these on such a sub- 
ject? Does not my friend do here, what he said some of 
his orthodox brethren did p. 45? ''His genius too, formed 
for the love of metaphor, his passions burning with his sub- 
ject, and his judgment a long way behind, he has made an 
awful display of the terrific." We can devise nothing 
more suitable in the way of remark than his own observa- 
tions on this kind of preaching. "But what has such a dis- 
cbsure effected? Why, it has perhaps irritated and shock- 
ed some of the best people in his audience; it has gained 
the applause of some of the weakest, and may have es- 
tablished the preacher's character for faithfulness, but as 
to the wicked, not one of them has been '•persuaded? ta 
forsake his evil way, and turn unto God; so far from it^ 
their understandings have been outraged, and their best, 
not their worst passions disgusted, and so they have re- 
solved to sin on, being hardened in their iniquities, in- 
stead of being alarmed, and softened, and subdued.'' 
Let Mr. S. look at what he has said in pp. 117, 118^ 
and say if this display of the terrific, and making a hell 
of sin and sinners, is likely to have any better effects 
than he has just described in this quotation. Where 
does he find the sacred writers make hells in this way? 
If he had, it would have saved hi.n the trouble of man- 
ufacturing one from his own imagination. 

Mr. S. from pp. 119 — 124i, goes onto tell his readers, 
that I am not acquainted with the principle or tendency 
of my own system. And I might with as much propri- 
ety assert, that he is not acquainted with the principle 
and tendency of his system, for one assertion is as good 
as another, where no proof is attempted. But his talent 
does not seem to lie in proving things, for here, as in 
many other places, he favours us with a few more pages 
of assertions, misrepresentations, and frightful conse- 
quences, which few men except Mr. S. would venture 
to risk on paper. They are an outrage on all sober dis- 
passionate discussion. But, I ought to be thankful, that 
he seldom abuses me alone, but generally flogs me iu 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 131 

icompany with some other person. Here the ' Roman- 
ists,' the ' Church of England,' the ' Calvinists,' the 
* Arminians,' and ' H^pkinsians,' all come in for a share 
of my flagellation. Why he should have let the poor 
Unitarians go without a portion throughout all his dis- 
courses, I am unable to perceive, unless it be, that he 
nearly flogged them to death on a former occasion. I 
can easily account for the Presbyterians escaping his 
lash. They are for the present his dearly beloved 
brethren. But let them take care, lest Mr. 8. get an- 
gry with them. If he should, he has stripes in reserve 
for them. If he has chastised others with whips, take 
€are lest he chastise you with scorpions. Humour him, 
teep his good graces, for wo be to you, if you do not. 

In pp. 124—126, I am accused by Mr. S. of resorting 
to stratagem, '' especially in the section, entitled, ob- 
jections considered." It seems I made ■' a mere man of 
straw," to show my prowess in beating him down. But 
unfortunately for him, as usual, all he says about this is 
only bare-faced assertion. Why could he not have ad- 
duced an example or two from my system of objections, 
and show^ed his prowess in exposing my stratgvtn. But 
we would inform him, that all these objections were ac- 
tually made, and we endeavoured to state them as fully 
and fairly as we could. Whether I met them fairly and 
fully, let my readers judge. Mr. S.'s assertions against 
what I have said, ought not to put it down ; and as he 
offers us nothing but assertions, they deserve no atten^ 
tion from me. 

From pp. 126—129, as well as other parts of Mr. 
S.'s lectures noticed already, I cannot help suspecting, 
that his object was to give his orthodox friends a flog- 
ging, fully as much as to answer my book. His plan is, 
to whip them over my back. Here he commences, by 
misrepresenting what I have said in relation to the or- 
thodox, and puts it in Italic type. ^' He asserts that 
they have departed from the great doctrines of the 
reformation; that their ecclesiastical discipline and 
mortal progress are a mere party formality y and a 
shameful hypocrisy. ^^ We call on Mr. S. to name the 
page of the ' Inquiry,' where I have asserted, " That 
their ecclesiastical discipline and moral progress are 



132 MR. Sabine's proofs of a 

a mere party formality and a sliameful hypocrisy. ^^ 
I have not named their ecclesiastical discipline, impeach- 
ed their morals, nor taxed them with hypocrisy, not to 
say shameful hypocrisy. I have, indeed, asserted the 
fact, which is notorious, that they have departed from 
orthodoxy, or the great doctrines of the reformation, 
but not in the way of blaming them for it. I have as- 
^ serted this, just as I have done that Mr. S. has departed 
from the great doctrines of the reformation, in not ad- 
vocating that Hell is a place of endhss misery to all 
the ivicked. Was not this a great doctrine of the refor- 
mation ? And has not he departed from it? Let him lay his 
hand on his mouth and his mouth in the dust, and never 
open it any more against Andover or Cambridge until 
he returns to this great doctrine of the reformation. 

But Mr. S, proceeds to give us two definitions of or- 
thodoxy. He says, 1st, "Sometimes, and that often, 
it describes an established or dominant party in the visi- 
ble church, or a party that has retained enough of power 
still to usurp and domineer over such of their brethren 
as refuse to be of their party, and to work with them in 
their church craft. Thus the term applies to all parties, 
and mere sectarians of every creed, whether it consists 
of faith or unbelief; this is orthodoxy." Bad as Judas 
was, when he turned a satan to Christ and his cause, 
he had no such story to tell of him, his fellow disciples, 
nor of orthodoxy in those days. For his own credit, 
for the credit of all orthodox men, and the general credit 
of orthodoxy itself, we wonder that Mr. S. did not avoid 
such a disclosure. But we query if he does not here, 
and in some other places, allude to some personal diffi- 
culties between himself and the orthodox, with which I 
have nothing to do. Ought not some allowance to be 
made, for his excited feelings and prejudice against the 
orthodox? 

2d. " But by the term we understand, sometimes, 
that body of Christians who hold, what are commonly 
called, the doctrines of the reformation; what these are, 
I need not delineate, every one at all acquainted with 
the history of the church knows what these are. The 
term evangelical applies much in the same way." Mr. 
S, then, is neither orthodox nor evangeUcal, for " every 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED, 133 

one at all acquainted with the history of the church, 
knows," th -t endless misery in hell" is a principal doc- 
trine of the reformation. The following complaint, 
about the professors at Andover, comes, therefore, with 
an ill grace from Mr. Sabine. He says, " Our princi- 
pal Theological department, after a series of vassillating 
and speculating, has aimed a deadly blow at the all-im- 
portant and ail7precious doctrine of the atonement. 
And what is still worse on this point, after some effort on 
the part of this declining Seminary to return, the Chris- 
tian Spectator J the professed guardian of sound doctrine, 
comes out in open advocacy of this defalcation, and 
boldly tells the orthodox commuity, that they do not un- 
derstand the subject." The press is free. Mr. S. is 
also '' the propssed guardian of sound doctrine." 
Why does he not write, and put those vassillating and 
speculating men right. We are confident, that they 
will give his evidence a patient hearing, and should they 
dissent, will offer in reply something more than bare as- 
sertions. Why does such a giant in the defence of the 
reformation, not put his shoulder to the work, and put 
the Andover Institution, yea, the whole orthodox body 
to rights at once? 

But Mr. S. says, '' This kind of proceeding in theolog- 
ical affairs gives Mr. B. and indeed all unbelievers, an 
opportunity of exulting over the orthodox." Here Mr. 
S. is mistaken, for neither as a believer nor an unbeliev- 
er have I exulted over the orthodox. I merely urged 
the fact, that they took the liberty to depart from ortho- 
doxy, and that I was no more to blame then they were. 
So far from blaming them, or exulting over them, the 
men to whom he more particularly alludes, we not only 
respect but esteem, Happy would it be for Mr. S. if 
he would imitate them, in freely investigating what is 
truth, and the excellent spirit in which they can discuss 
their religious opinions with those who differ from them. 
But we call on Mr. S. to quote my words, where I have 
said what he asserts. " Mr. B. triumphs not a little also 
over the fallen moral character of the orthodox." In 
what part of my book have I impeached the moral char- 
acter of a single individual of any sect under heaven. I 
venture to say no man in the whole orthodox body will 



134 MR. Sabine's proofs op a 

accuse me of this. I am sorry Mr. S. should make m^ 
the lash to his whip. 

But Mr. S. declares that I have said '' many hard 
things " of the orthodox, two or three of which he says 
he will only notice. Ist. ''That the orthodox do not 
believe the doctrines they profess, particularly the pun* 
ishment of the wicked, if they did they would not act a» 
they do. We put it to Mr. S.'s own conscience, if he 
sincerely believed in the endless misery of a part, and ac- 
cording to true orthodoxy, a large part of the human race, 
would he act as he does'? Would not his eyes weep blood, 
would not his labours be incessent, would he not endure 
every hardship, and suffer patiently every privation in en- 
treating and warning men about such misery? Does not 
all that he says on the subject pretty much evaporate in 
the pulpit? If but the inmates of a ten foot building were 
in danger of being burnt to death, he would not manifest 
one half the apathy, as he does about the whole town of 
Boston, yea, the whole world. 

2d, " Revivals of religion, the subject of so much 
"boast, are mere schemes of church policy, a pious fraud, 
a manmuvre to get up^ a something for the enlargement 
of a sect wanting in better means of promoting its spirit- 
ual interest.'' Mr. S. says more than I did, or durst 
say in regard to revivals of religion. He does not con- 
trovert my views of a true revival, and his statement of 
what passes for this, may be relied on, as he has been in 
the secret of how such affairs are managed. No doubt 
he knows all about the priest craft and church craft of 
this buisness. From what he says of revivals, it is plain 
he does not approve of such church craft, and it is well 
known, that he has ceased from being a workman among 
that part of the orthodox called Congregationalists. 

In p. 129, Mr. S. says, " From this view of ortho* 
doxy, as given by Mr. B. we learn two things." What 
are they? " First, the probable reason why the orthodox 
did not attempt an answer to the " Inquiry-" The reason 
is rather obvious, the orthodox were conscious that they 
were too much on the wane themselves to do any thing 
with Mr. B. ; he would have said, if they had "opened 
their lips" ' Physician heal thyself.' He does say, " Be- 
fore they open their lips against me, let them return to 



FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 135 

the doctrines of their forefathers and confess how great- 
ly they have departed from the good old wayJ^ And 
cannot I now say the very same thing of Mr, S. who has 
departed from tlie good old way of endless misery to all 
the wicked. I do say to him again, '' Physician heal 
thyself." We are imable to say, what was the probable 
or possible reason why the orthodox did not answer the 
' Inquiry.' But this we will say as our honest opinion, 
that had they answered it, they would not have mutilated, 
altered and misrepresented it as Mr. S. has done. Nor 
would they, like him, have abandoned the defence of end- 
Isss misery. 

2d. But Mr. S. adds, " We are taught secondly, how 
to take our leave of Mr. B. We have an opportunity 
now of introducing our friend Balfour to a body of the 
Christian community, with whom, it is probable, he had 
thought there could be little fellowship. Mr, B. insin- 
uates that the orthodox do not believe in a future retri- 
bution for sinners, (231,) and he justifies his ' doubts' of 
their faith in this doctrine by argument not a little co- 
gent : if so then they are Universalists, and Universalists 
of Mr. B.'s class, JVon-rstributionists. The junction is 
easily formed and it seems natural; for these apostoliz- 
ing orthodox, it seems have had a hand in forming our 
Inquirer's present scheme, and Mr. B. himself has given 
a delineation of their decline so favourable to his owa^ 
that they in the fitness of things ought to coalesce, and 
declare themselves one." Well, I thank Mr. S. after 
" hanging me up between heaven and earth as unfit 
for neither," he should at last leave me in such good 
company. 

In taking our leave of Mr. Sabine, we have only 
room for a remark or two, and these very briefly stated^ 
They respect the further discussion of the subject, should 
he be pleased to continue it. It is very evident, that 
we are not agreed in our religious opinions, and that on 
a subject of universal concern, involving the future and 
eternal condition of the children of men. Are we then 
agreed on any principles, on which a further discussion 
of this subject might be useful if properly conducted. 

1st. We are perfectly agreed, that all we can know 
of a future state, and of man in regard to it, is to be 



136 MR. Sabine's proofs, &c. 

learned entirely from divine revelation. As we both 
profess, that the Bible contains the whole of the reveal- 
ed will of God, the simple question between us is, What 
has God been pleased to reveal on this subject? It is of 
no consequence, what were the gi^eat doctrines of the 
reformation^ or what is now orthodoxy or evangelical, 
the entire question is, What saith the scriptures? 

2d. We propose then to Mr. S. that we leave all 
questions out of view except this. What does the Bible 
teach, in any given text as to the piinishment of soul 
or body in a future state of existence? We cordially 
agree to the principles in the following quotation, and to 
be regulated by them iii settling this queation. Though 
WTitten on another controversy they equally apply to this. 
Mr. Stuart, in his letters to Dr. Channing, says, p. 14, 
'' The claims of the Bible to be authoritative being once 
admitted, the simple question in respect to it is, What 
does it teach in regard to any particular passage? What 
idea did the original writer mean to convey? When this 
is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpretation, it 
is authoritative. This is orthodoxy in the highest and 
best sense of the word; and every thing which is oppos- 
ed to it, which modefies it, which fritters its meaning 
away, is heterodoxy; is heresy; to whatever name or par- 
ty it is attached." Let Mr. S. then select any texts,, 
which he thinks prove this doctrine, and let them be 
candidly and fairly discussed, by ail the rules of legiti- 
mate interpretation, and let this be orthodoxy, whatt-vsr 
may be the sense of them. Let all these rules of inter- 
pretation be employed, to ascertain, what ideas the orig- 
inal writers meant to convey in them. 

3d. Let this discussion be conducted in a Christian 
spirit, free from all bitterness of temper, or harsh and pro- 
voking language. Let the meekness and gentleness of 
Christ, dictate the language, and evidence be the object 
we shall keep constantly in view, in ail that we write on 
the subject. Should my friend Mr. S. be inclined to ac- 
cept of my proposals, and be regulated by the principles 
stated, good might result from a farther discussion. But 
if we are not both to govern ourselves by them the pub- 
lic could derive little benefit from its continuance. 



y 



i A^m^ 



I 




:<% 





-^, .-^^■ 







'^/ 







'/ ■<> 






■^^ ,^\ 



c\^^ 










x^ <^<. 





<p^ 



"> 







A^^. 




^^ ^^.. 



'-A- 






\'^ ^ 



V^ ^ 



A ^ , g '^^^ ■ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. ^ 
!^'- \ ' ^^ ^ O Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
~5 Mwo^0^ '^ ' Treatment Date: August 2005 



, g '-i^^ Deacidified using the Bookke( 

^y.^ t "^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

[^^ '^ ' Treatment Date: August 2005 

c , PreservationTechnologies 

> \' A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

o,v- 1 1 1 Thomson ParK Drive 

\ nranhorn/ TniA/nchin PA Ifinfifi 



aX' 



-^^^#a' 



Cranberry Tow 
'724)779-211 



\ 16066 



-v.^-o^- ^ j^mi: 



